Industry Day_1 Q.As 08.31.11.pdf

HQ0147‐11‐R‐0002

Industry Days (1) ‐ 2‐3 Aug. 11

Questions/Answers

# Question Answer 3 Reference is made to "Bidder's Library" and "Offerors' Library" What, if any, is the distinction?

The term “Offerors' Library is the correct terminology. Future versions of documentation will reflect the correct language.

4 Would the Government consider a second draft (base on the final requirements) RFP to allow Industry questions before releasing the RFP?

The Government does not currently intend to release a second draft RFP, but may release feedback and clarifications as deemed necessary. If an Offeror has feedback concerning any part of the draft RFP, please provide this feedback to Carol Rivard, PCO, at ClearCompetition@mda.mil.

5 Will the government consider insertion of Performance Based Payment in lieu of progress payments on the FPI CLINS?

Offeror's proposals should be based on the RFP language which establishes progress payments.

No change is planned at this time.

6 Will the Software be available to the Offerors? It is the Government’s intent to provide this information in the appropriate format and will do so when able.

7 Is the POAM document in the Offeror's Library? If not, we request it be added.

What is the latest scope?

It is the Government’s intent to provide this information in the appropriate format and will do so when available.

9 Will there be an opportunity to brief our assessment of the content in the Offeror's Library?

The Government welcomes and encourages feedback regarding the Offerors' Library and any other portion of the Draft RFP. The Government will consider all of your feedback regarding the library and the RFP prior to relase of the final RFP. The intent of the Government is to make sure access to the documentation necessary to construct an offer is provided to all potential offerors in a timely manner. Please feel free to ask any questions through Carol Rivard, PCO, at ClearCompetition@mda.mil .

10 Will documents currently in the Government’s possession, be made readily available?

The Offeror’s Library will be populated with the documents required to support the source selection following appropriate release procedures. It is partially populated today and will continue to be updated as the Government identifies additional useful documents and secures approval for posting. All necessary documents will be posted prior to Final RFP package release.

11 Will offerors' be able to use FOUO data from other contracts? Offerors may use other data, information, and experiences from other programs in accordance with release instructions from the source programs. Offerors are reminded that they shall adhere to applicable statutes, regulations, directives, distribution statements, or other document markings and instructions. If you are unsure if there are any restrictions on data or information from previous programs, please contact Carol Rivard, PCO, at ClearCompetition@mda.mil for clarification

13 Will the REX design be in the Offerors' Library? It is the Government’s intent to provide this information in the appropriate format.

14 Will RAM data be made available? Yes. The Clear/Cod Program Office is currently coordinating with the Air Force UEWR Sustainment Organization to acquire and post RAM data at the sub‐system level. Additionally, the Government intends to add to the Offerors’ Library the Reliability Math Models for all UEWRs.

15 Will the slides from the general audience Industry Day session be posted? The slides from the Industry Day general audience session have been posted in the Offeror's Library.

8/31/2011

Questions/Answers

# Question Answer 16 We understand that there has been an obsolescence study conducted on the radars. Will that be posted in the Bidder’s Library?

The Air Force sustaining organization has contracted for a study to identify components of the radars that are nearing obsolescence. Once that report has been received and accepted by the Government, that information will be made available via the Offerors’ Library.

17 The chart in the Industry Day presentation that described the content of the Offerors’ Library included a reference to the “Initial Capabilities Document” in the Unclassified Library. Does that document exist? If not, which document is being referred to?

The presentation posted to the Offerors' Library has been corrected to read “Interface Control Document.” Please note that the unclassified Interface Control Documents may include references to classified documents which will be included in the classified portion of the Offerors’ Library.

Please also note that the chart presented during Industry Day was an overview of the Offerors’ Library content. Potential Offerors are encouraged to review the actual content of the library itself to gain a complete understanding of the technical data being made available by the Government.

18 Is all the data we (Offerors) need going to be made available to the Offerors?

Does the Government have the rights to the necessary data to share it for this source selection?

The Government has the rights necessary on all data posted in the Offerors’ Library and on all the information considered necessary to support this full and open competition. The Government welcomes feedback regarding information that Offerors consider necessary to support the source selection that is not included in the library. Please submit your feedback to Carol Rivard, PCO, at ClearCompetition@mda.mil.

21 Why is the Government competing this source selection since you announced it to be a sole source acquisition year ago?

Market research was conducted and the the Missile Defense Agency Acquisition Strategy Board determined that a full and open competition was appropriate. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria established in the final RFP package. All offers will be given a fair evaluation.

22 Would it be possible to use the CISF facility? Contractors should not plan on having access to the CISF prior to having a system fully developed and ready to enter into Government testing. While it may be possible to gain access to the CISF at times, any such activities would have to be deconflicted with other ongoing work in the CISF.

Access to the CISF cannot be guaranteed at this time.

23 Can sub‐contractors bid with multiple Offerors? The Government places no restrictions on contractor/subcontractor teaming.

26 Has the Government identified any risk items? Will the Government risks be provided to the Offerors?

The Government has conducted a preliminary risk assessment that addresses cost, schedule, and performance risks for its internal use. That assessment is still ongoing and detailed mitigation plans are being developed. The Government does not intend to release this assessment.

However, as part of the Government's evaluation of offers, the Government will evaluate the Offerors’ concepts to mitigate risk.

27 Are there any lessons learned that can be shared with the contractor? It is the Government’s intent to provide lessons learned that are pertinent to the RFP.

28 Since the past performance portion of the proposal is due 15 days prior to the rest of the proposal, how long will Offerors have to write the proposal?

The Government will ensure adequate time is allotted for proposal preparation. The final timeline proposal due date will be published with the final RFP package. The Government welcomes any suggestions to assist in establishing proposal preparation timelines. Please provide feedback to Carol Rivard, PCO, at ClearCompetition@mda.mil.

Questions/Answers

# Question Answer 30 Are Offerors allowed to use FOUO? FOUO information may be used in response to the RFP as long as there are no additional restrictions. Please follow all distribution statements on information as appropriate. If you are not certain, please provide your specific question or issue to Carol Rivard, PCO, at ClearCompetition@mda.mil.

31 There may be OCI questions with IA activity we are doing. How should we address?

Please submit any potential or real OCI issues as soon as possible to Carol Rivard, PCO, at ClearCompetition@mda.mil for clarification.

32 Does the Government intend the Contractor to deliver the same hardware as described in the Thule TDP with the exception of SP/DP redesign and obsolescence redesign?

Yes, the Government requires that the Contractor shall deliver the same hardware as described in the Thule Technical Data Package with the exception of SP/DP redesign and obsolescence redesign.

33 The Draft RFP terms of requirements and the Cover Letter states the contractor is responsible for developing and implementing the final design for Clear and Cape Cod and to address obsolescence. The DRAFT SOW is not specific‐ What are we responsible for?

The contractor is to continue production of UEWRs, using the Thule design as the starting point.

As stated previously, the Government desires the systems fielded at Clear and Cape Cod to resemble (as closely as feasible) the system fielded at Thule. However, the Government does acknowledge that some components of the system may be nearing obsolescence. The Government looks to the contractor to review the Thule configuration and identify any elements that may be candidates for form/fit/function replacement in the near term, so that those obsolescence issues can be addressed during the course of the Clear/Cod upgrades.

34 Are the obsolescence studies available/released to assist us with our proposals?

The Government sustainment office is currently completing an obsolescence study. It will be made available once completed. Any other obsolescence studies will be made available, as appropriate.

35 Is there anything else in the UEWR design that may have obsolescence issues? Any components that get replaced as part of upgrading an EWR to an UEWR needs to be assessed by the contractor for possible obsolescence

36 Please clarify what Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) information the Government is seeking. For example, what level of the corporation do we have to go to when evaluating potential OCIs?

Identifying and mitigating any real or potential OCIs is the responsibility of the Offeror. If an Offeror is concerned that they may have a real or potential OCI, please provide the details to Carol Rivard, PCO, at ClearCompetition@mda.mil for clarification.

37 Are there any requirements for new functionality? The contract requirements are as identified in the SOW and PIDS Rev G.

47 If BMDS and PIDS Rev H are applied to this contract, will they also be applied to Beale, Fylingdales, and Thule as part of the contract along with the SP/DP?

Retrofitting capability back into Beale, Fylingdales, and Thule is beyond the scope of this contract.

50 Does any company have proprietary interests in the existing UEWR design at Thule, Beale, and/or Fylingdales?

The Government has an appropriate level of rights to all the information available through the Offerors’ Library. The Library will be updated with information as it becomes available up through final RFP release. If an Offeror needs something that is not currently available, please provide feedback (what you need and rationale) to Carol Rivard, PCO, at ClearCompetition@mda.mil

51 Will we know in advance which site personnel will be available at the site visits?

No. We will not know which site personnel will be available in advance to support the upcoming industry site visits

Questions/Answers

# Question Answer 52 Is the Public Affairs aspect appropriate to be dealt with as part of the proposal?

While the program needs to be sensitive to the environmental concerns at each site, how an Offeror proposes to deal with Public Affairs topics is not a criteria that will be specifically evaluated.

53 Can Offerors bring cameras and laptops for site visits? No. Recording devices of any kind are not allowed into the facilities during the site visits

54 Is it your intent to have another Industry Day? While the Government is always open to feedback from potential Offerors, another formal Industry Day is not planned. Please provide feedback any time to Carol Rivard, PCO, at ClearCompetition@mda.mil.

55 Will Offerors be given access to the content of VCN4 or subsequent version releases?

It is the Government’s intent to provide this information in the appropriate format. The successful Offeror will continue to have access to the content and design information for any subsequent VCNs.

56 Is VCN 4 software only? VCN4 (UR/11‐1) incorporates a total of ten System Change Forms (SCFs) including software and hardware modifications. A complete description of VCN4 content will be provided in the Offerors’ Library.

57 Is the Government assuming future VCNs will be software only? The content of any future VCNs has not yet been defined, so the Government cannot address the scope of any future VCNs. However, the successful Offeror will continue to have access to the content and design information for any subsequent VCNs.

58 What is the Government looking for at this stage, is the Prime contractor going to start with the Thule baseline software and hardware?

The Offerors shall continue the production of the UEWR program starting from the hardware and software configuration fielded at Thule. The Government acknowledges that there may be some hardware and/or software modifications required to account for any obsolescence issues that may have arisen since the Thule radar was upgraded, and to make adaptations that may be required to implement the designs at the Clear and Cape Cod radar sites. Where those situations exist, the Government looks to the Contractor to propose form/fit/function replacements (where possible) to address those obsolescence issues. Any new/modified hardware and/or software should account for the potential addition of future requirements as defined in the BMD System Specification and the DRAFT PIDS Rev H.

59 Would it be acceptable to meet operational acceptance earlier? Yes, the Government is open to completing the program ahead of schedule without assuming unnecessary risk. However, fiscal constraints, coordination and synchronization with the integration contractor, OTA, IA testing, training, etc. may preclude any significant acceleration.

Questions/Answers

# Question Answer 61 In the Draft RFP, section S2‐6 (Information Assurance)…What is the baseline working towards?

The Information Assurance starting point for the Clear/Cod Upgrade is as defined in the Thule configuration description (including all DoD 8500 enhancements that were incorporated as part of VCN 3). The Information Assurance POA&M to address correction of UEWR IA deficiencies will be made available via the Offerors' Library (classified portion). The Offerors are encouraged to review the VCN 4 content (also provided in the Offerors' Library) to gain an understanding of the IA enhancements that are included in the VCN. Ultimately, the Contractor will be required to deliver a system that is compliant with the applicable IA controls at the time the system is delivered to the Government with a current baseline date for system updates/patches.

62 Is VCN3 the baseline for the Clear/Cod contract? VCN3 is the configuration currently fielded at Thule, and serves as the starting point for the Clear/Cod contract. See response to Question #1, above, for additional information.

63 Understanding that commonality is empahsized in the Draft RFP for anything that needs to be redesigned, once the design is established and is deployed to other sites, will there be separate CLINS for each?

The new designs will be implemented at the Clear and Cod UEWR sites under this contract.

Deployments to the Beale, Fylingdales, and Thule UEWR sites are not within the scope of this RFP.

64 What is the overall budget and will the Government release the budget for this effort? Will the Government release the contract value of the previous contract?

The Government is not sharing this information with industry at this time.

65 Would the Government be open to alternative fee structures to lower Government risk?

The Government welcomes feedback from Offerors regarding the proposed approach. The approach stated in the final RFP package will be what Offerors must propose against.

70 Will an IBR be required annually? SOW 5.1.3.1 Yes, reference MDA compliance docs for IBR MDA 5004.01H and BMDS 5004.01 INS. It is MDA policy that an IBR process be established for every BMDS contract, Contract Line Item Number, or Technical Agreement that includes a requirement for EVM. The initial IBR must be conducted within four months after contract award and then every twelve months therafter.

71 What is meant by ‘Integrated Schedule’? Anything that impacts the contractor from completing the Clear contract, should be integrated into a single schedule including but not limited to inter‐relationships with another contractor or other work from another contract that needs to be completed prior to completing your task.

Ultimately, all tasks and their inter‐relationships that are required to complete the Clear and Cod upgrades, should be included in the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS).

Questions/Answers

# Question Answer 73 What will be the content of the documentation? What does ‘aid’ entail? The Government’s intent is to make as much information available to potential Offerors as possible to form your proposals, to preemptively address as many questions as possible, and to support the goal of achieving commonality across all five UEWR sites. As such, the Government has endeavored to post as much information regarding hardware and software configurations, facilities layouts, current and emerging requirements, etc. as possible. The Government intends to continue to update the Offerors’ Library as additional relevant, releasable information is discovered. With respect to the SP/DP Critical Design Review, the current projection for that event is January, 2012. As such, that CDR package may not be available in a timeline sufficient to support proposal development.

75 What is the Government’s intent with the following sentence: “The contractor shall design the Clear UEWR to reduce the impact and frequency of performing obsolescence upgrades; thereby reducing UEWR lifecycle sustainment cost” ?

The Government desires to minimize overall lifecycle costs for acquiring and sustaining UEWRs.

Where components (hardware or software) need to be redesigned, the Contractor should give due consideration to overall lifecycle and ease of maintenance. Factors that can contribute to reducing lifecycle costs include, but are not limited to, life expectancy of hardware components, ease of changing out line replaceable units, form/fit/function replacements, backwards compatibility of components, modularity of software, use of Open interfaces, etc.

76 There are areas in the SOW where references to baseline are not clear. It is not always clear whether the Government is referencing the baseline the contractor must build from or the final baseline the contractor will deliver.

Can we get some clarification? (Same for L & M)

Yes, the Government will review the SOW and Sections L & M to ensure it is clear which baseline is being addressed. If you are aware of specific baseline references that are confusing, please provide feedback to Carol Rivard, PCO at Clear Competion@mda.mil.

77 JSP requirements are listed in the Aplicable Documents section as a specific requirement and it references all 5 sites. Do you want all 5 sites to be compliant with the JSP requirements?

To support the Government objective of commonality across all the UEWR sites, the design developed for Clear and Cod needs to be capable of being retrofit into Fylingdales and all other UEWR sites without requiring significant redesign. Therefore the JSP requirements necessary for fielding at Fylingdales must be considered for all five sites (including Clear and Cape Cod), although the scope of this contract does not include deployment to all 5 sites. The Government is open to innovative approaches that reduce overall cost, yet satisfy JSP440/480 requirements for Fylingdales (e.g., common architecture for all sites with only minor component changes to satisfy the more stringent requirements at Fylingdales).

79 Please clarify the intention with regard to the Development String – does the Government want a complete Development String delivered at the end of contract? (SOW para 3.3.2.7)

The Government envisions that this Development String is Contractor‐acquired property under the terms of FAR 52.245. At the conclusion of the Period of Performance for this contract, the string becomes Government Property. Ref SOW section 5.8.1 for transfer direction.

Questions/Answers

# Question Answer 80 Unclear how Small Business goals are evaluated, can you clarify. Pending correction to Section M, paragraph M‐05.2.5, Subfactor MS5: Small Business Participation

& Commitment will be evaluated in accordance with paragraphs M‐04.1 and M‐05.2.5. VOLUME II ‐ MANAGEMENT (Factor 2) ‐ DRFP Page 9, Section M, paragraph M‐05.2.5 Management Subfactor 5 (MS5): Small Business Participation & Commitment; the second sentence incorrectly contains a reference to Section L‐08.5. The correct reference is: Section L, paragraph L‐07.3.6. Management Sub‐factor 5: Small Business Participation & Commitment. VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE (Factor 3) ‐ The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s record to assess its utilization of small businesses and its past performance in achieving subcontracting goals established in prior subcontracting plans, in accordance with DRFP Section M, paragraph M‐05.3.5 Small Business Utilization.

81 What is being implied with the evaluation regarding second‐tier? What is meant by second‐tier?

The Government will assess the Offerors’ proposed small business participation to contract performance at the prime contract through second tier subcontract levels. See DRFP Section L, paragraphs L‐07.3.6 Management Sub‐factor 5: Small Business Participation & Commitment, paragraph L‐07.4 . The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ Small Business Participation & Commitment in accordance with Section M, paragraph M‐05.2.5 Management Subfactor 5 (MS5):

Small Business Participation & Commitment. A prime contractor’s subcontractor is referred to as the first‐tier subcontractor. A first‐tier subcontractor’s subcontractor is referred to as the second‐ tier subcontractor. Other than small business (OTSB) first‐tier and second‐tier subcontractors are required to implement a subcontracting plan that complies with the requirements of FAR 52.219‐ 9.

82 What is the Small Business selection evaluation criterion? Would you consider making it more structured? Would you consider having ‘hard’ requirement?

The Government’s evaluation criteria for Management Subfactor 5 (MS5): Small Business Participation & Commitment is described in Section M, paragraphs M‐04.1 and M‐05.2.5. The Government’s evaluation criteria for past performance in Small Business Utilization is described in Section M, paragraph M‐05.3.5. Required information to facilitate the Government’s evaluation is described in the DRFP Section L, paragraphs L‐07.3.6, L‐07.4, and L‐08.7

83 Clarify Small Business paragraph and if 15% is applied to specific categories. DRFP Section L, paragraphs L‐07.3.6 describes the participation percentage targets. 15% is applied to the small business category only. Other percentages are targeted for HUBZone (.5%), Service‐ Disabled Verteran owned (.5%), Small Disadvantaged (5%), or Women owned categories (1.5%).

Each target percentage relates to the specific adjacent small business category and is evaluated separately.

86 Is the software for this capability expected to be the baseline UEWR MAS/STS re‐hosted on the new DP hardware?

Yes, the software for this capability is expected to be the baseline UEWR MAS/STS re‐hosted on the new DP hardware.

Questions/Answers

# Question Answer 87 Are the solutions for the REX and Beam Steering Units required for the

Clear/Cod UEWR? Is this an upgrade to the EWR to use the existing UEWR?

It is not the Gvernment's intent for the contractor to redesign the Beam Steering Unit, per se. The BSU Interface Card has been identified as one component that may require replacement due to obsolescence. This contract is to continue the production of the UEWRs based on the most recently fielded design (Thule). The Government’s intention is to implement the upgrade kit that went into Thule, with the exception of design changes that are driven by obsolescence. The Thule Technical Data Package in the Offerors' Library includes the comprehensive Thule baseline configuration. Understanding the PIDS requirements and the Technical baseline will assist Offerors in identifying what other components (if any) need to be updated. Where updates are required, Form/ fit/function replacements are preferred.

90 Is the UEWR software going to be re‐written? There is no need to re‐write the UEWR software. Some software modifications may be required to the extent that hardware changes force a re‐host of the software, which is within the scope of this effort.

94 Will the Clear/Cod require a development string at their facility? The Government will look to the Offerors to propose the most cost‐effective means to complete this task.

99 Will Offerors know what the decision is on the SP/DP before the Final RFP is released?

The Government will get information out to Industry as soon as a final decision is made whether or not the SP/DP redesign is to be part of the RFP.

128 Will the DD 254 Security Classification Guide be released to Offerors? The DD 254 will be released to the Offerors.