FBO R3 Q As UEWR CD BIT 03 09 12.pdf

Industry

Questions and Answers

Questions Government Responses/Answers

164 L‐10.3. a. (page 25) states that Offeror shall propose resources for Task

Order 0001 in accordance with their unique technical approach. However, Section L‐10.3 (page 26) also states that if the proposed technical approach to Task Order 0001 does not utilize all the labor categories listing in Section J, Attachment 3, then the Offeror shall not develop FBLRs for these categories. The SOW requirements for Task Order 0001 are a subsection of the overall Contract SOW. Therefore, the Offeror will either have to arbitrarily assign hours to Labor Categories in the Task Order 0001 pricing to ensure that those labor categories are available for subsequent task orders or may not have the appropriate labor categories available for subsequent task orders. Will the Government remove the requirement stating that the Offeror cannot develop FBLRs for categories not proposed as part of the Task Order 0001 solution?

If the proposed Technical Approach to Task Order 0001 does not utilize all the Labor Categories listed in Section J Attachment 3, then the Offeror should not develop FBLRs for these categories. Offerors should note that the MDA does not anticipate modifying the rate table post award to add pricing for labor categories not priced during the competitive process. If the Government identifies a requirement after award that requires additional labor categories, those labor categories may be added by supplemental agreement.

165 Section L‐10‐7 FBFRS Exhibit B1 (page 28) states that a separate Exhibit B1 is required for the Prime and each Major Subcontractor. Since this Exhibit contains proprietary information, please clarify whether the prime should provide a fully burdened rate only in the Exhibit B1 for the Major

Subcontractor, with a separate tab for each Major Subcontractor, and then submit the Major Subcontractor detailed B‐1 in a sealed package.

Section L‐10.2 General Instructions provides that "Major Subcontractors are not required to disclose proprietary information to the Prime

Contractor. However, the Prime Contractor must include summary level cost information for all Major Subcontractors work requirements and must ensure an un‐sanitized proposal is submitted for each subcontract proposal at any tier equal to or greater than 10% of Task Order 0001

(percent measured in dollars) (excluding ODC and Travel). In a case where the prime Offeror’s Cost volume does not contain full cost information for a specific Major Subcontractor, the Major Subcontractor must forward an un‐sanitized proposal directly to the Government no later than the closing date of the solicitation." As a consequence, if the Subcontractor should decline to provide proprietary information to the Prime for incorporation into Exhibit B‐1, the Prime should provide the Major Subcontractor's fully burdened rate in Exhibit B‐1 and ensure that an un‐sanitized proposal is submitted for each subcontract proposal at any tier equal to or greater than 10% of Task Order 0001 (percent measured in dollars) (excluding ODC and Travel).

166 Section L10.7 Exhibit B3, Minor Subcontractor Fully Burdened Rates (page

29) states that that Exhibit B2 is required of the prime and major subcontractor. Please clarify if B2 is to be provided for Major

Subcontractors and Minor Subcontractors or for the Minor Subcontractors of both the Prime and Major subcontractors. Should the Prime provide an

Exhibit B2 tab for each Minor Subcontractor?

Your question cites two Exhibits, B2 Minor Subcontractor Fully Burdened

Labor Rates and B3 Composite Team Fully Burdened Labor Rates.

However, the body of your question addresses Exhibit B2. Exhibit B2 is required of both the prime contractor and Major Subcontractors if the

Prime or Major Subcontractor has Subcontractors that do not meet the L‐

10.2 definition of a Major Subcontractor (a proposal equal to or greater than 10% of Task Order 0001 (percent measured in dollars excluding ODC and Travel)).

167 Section L10.8 Exhibit B3 Composite Team Fully Burdened Labor Rates

(Page 29). Please clarify if the prime should utilize both Major and Minor

Subcontractors in the development of the Composite team rate.

Yes.

168 According to the Government’s response to question 108 of Q&A round 1, the government is responsible for daily operations and control of the radar sites. Does this include maintaining the Radar system as a “Mission

Assurance Category (MAC) I, and Confidentiality Level "Classified' and

Protection Level of at least two (PL‐2)”?

The operation, control and maintenance of operational radar sites, Thule, Fylingdales, COBRA DANE, etc., are outside the scope of this solicitation.

169 Are there any overlapping requirements for IA on the EWR upgrade contracts? What are the differences in the processes for IATO, ATO, and

ATC requirements being accomplished under EWR upgrade contracts, and the sustainment efforts?

The IA requirements of any EWR upgrade and/or on‐going sustainment efforts are outside the scope of this solicitation.

Questions Government Responses/Answers

170 Task Order 0001, Paragraph 3.10.2: Section 3.10.4 Satellite Test Campaign

(STC) mentions there will not be any STC effort for this Task Order.

However, line 98 of Section 3.10.2 starts with SNG‐26‐S, which according to the IMTP is an STC collection effort. Is this an effort that is expected to be coordinated during the Task Order as instructed in Section 3.10.2 or not as directed in section 3.10.4? Please clarify the Task Order to correct the actual event that is expected.

The Satellite Test Campaign was limited to a prescribed number of data collections across multiple SN radar platforms. It was originally supposed to be complete by the end of 2011. SNG‐26‐S, while similar to the STC scope, was set up separately because it needed to be performed during the max solar cycle. It has been determined by the Government that no support will be required for SNG‐26‐S under this contract and it will be deleted from the formal Task Order 0001.

171 Task Order 0001, Paragraph 3.10.2 & MDA 3002.03, MDA Directive, BMDS

Test Policy: This table specifies the intended dates for Ground Test Runs for Record (RFR). Using the standard phasing durations as specified in the

BMDS Test Policy (MDA 3002.03), it appears that some of the phases appearing under the “Milestones to be Completed” column will fall outside of the period of performance provided in the Industry Day briefing (8‐1‐

2012 through 7‐31‐2013). Should these activities that are outside of the period of performance be excluded from the resource volume? Should these activities be excluded from the pricing? Please clarify the Task Order to include only the scope of the intended effort to be executed during the period of performance and included in the price.

While it is important to use the BMDS Test Policy (MDA 3002.03) as a guide for establishing nominal test durations, the actual test schedules may vary. For proposal purposes, offers should be based on the test schedule outlined in IMTP Version 12.1, which will be included in the next update to the classified data package. Offerors should include only the portion of work that is included in Task Order 0001's ordering period.

Work outside of the task order's ordering period should not be included in an Offeror's proposal.

Phases can be shorter or longer depending on objectives for a particular test and the overall current testing environment. Task Order 0001 includes the best current estimate of what will be completed or partially completed during the first year. For this reason the Government is entertaining a revision to the summary in the Total Resources Volume.

172 In the Q&As for the MDA Missile Defense Data Center (MDDC) Solicitation

(HQ147‐10‐R‐0030), MDA indicates that they are going to remove DFARS

252.234‐7001 and the requirements for EVM (answers to questions 109 and 184 in the Q&A posted on 09 Nov 2011). Since the MDDC is a similar acquisition using multiple types of Task Orders under a single award IDIQ, and has a much larger dollar value than UEWR & CD BIT, would it be possible to utilize the same justification MDDC used for the removal of the

EVM requirement?

The question posed in 109 of the MDDC posted on 09 Nov 2011 acknowledged that much of the MDDC effort is Level of Effort (LOE). The circumstances are not the same for MDDC and UEWR & CD BIT. The

Government does not foresee EVMS requirements being eliminated.

173 What type of turn‐around time should we expect from our Offerors'

Library request?

The unclassified portion of the Offerors' Library is being mailed upon request. Classified data will be made available as soon as possible, but not later than formal RFP release. While requests for the Offerors' Library must be approved by multiple offices before release, the Government remains sensitive to Industry needs and is making efforts to expedite responses for this vital information.

174 Will the classified documents of the Offerors' Library be distributed or only available via the Reading Room?

The classified data will be delivered to the Offerors with approved safeguarding capability via a classified data disk. Offerors who lack an approved safeguarding capability may, upon approved request, view all classified documents in the Offerors' Library in the Huntsville, AL classified

Reading Room.

175 What are the steps for a scheduled appointment in the classified Reading

Room?

If not previously accomplished, Offerors must submit requests for Reading

Room appointments via email to uewr‐cobra‐dane‐test‐support@mda.mil.

The PCO will acknowledge your request as soon as possible and provide additional instructions. If you have submitted an appointment request, please do not re‐submit the request. Participants will be limited to 3 personnel with a pre‐approved Visitor Authorization Request (VAR). A date and time window (no longer than 3‐hr duration during normal work hours) for using the room will be established in coordination with the requesting organization. The Offeror should contact the PCO if additional

3‐hour blocks are required.

176 The Technical Data Package (TDP) does not contain the latest unclassified version of the IMTP. How do we obtain a copy of the latest version? Is there a classified TDP that can be delivered to a secure facility, or does the

Government prefer on‐site viewing?

The Government does not plan to provide an unclassified version of the

IMTP. The IMTP is classified. IMTP Version 12.1 was recently approved by all stakeholders and will now be used for this solicitation. This version, in its entirety, will be provided in an updated classified data package.

Offerors who are unable to receive/store classified materials will be provided access to IMTP 12.1 during their classified Reading Room appointment.

Questions Government Responses/Answers

177 Does the Government plan to provide a determination for the submitted

OCI forms prior to formal RFP release?

The answers to questions 178 and 179 should provide Industry with the

Government's determination regarding the preponderance of OCI concerns. If an Offeror believes that its OCI issue is not resolved by response 178 and 179, they should contact the PCO via email to

Bob.Berkey@mda.mil as soon as possible.

It is incumbent upon the interested Offeror to identify potential OCI to the

Government and provide the appropriate OCI forms. Also, if an Offeror is aware of another actual or potential OCI, the Offeror should identify the

OCI in the proposal and complete the requirements of Section L to include a mitigation plan.

178 Can an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) supplier or Subcontractor to the OEM be part of an Offeror team?

Yes, an OEM supplier or Subcontractor may be part of the Offerors team.

All of the current CD/UEWR Hardware and Software has been accepted and placed in use by MDA and the Air Force. No conflict of interest exists.

179 Can MDA Support Contractors (including MiDAESS) and Subcontractors be part of an Offeror team?

MDA Support Contractors (including MiDAESS) and Subcontractors can be part of the Offerors team only if they have not provided direct support to the requirements development for this procurement or they are not potential advisors to the source selection. A complete listing of those firms who provide that type of support to SN will be included in a table in

Section L of the RFP. Here is the list as of now:

BCF Solutions; CACI International; CSC; Decisive Analytics; Delta Research, Inc.; DMD, LLC.; General Dynamics; Gray Research, Inc.; Information

Systems Laboratories; Kepler Research Inc.; MTS Enterprises LLC.;

Paradigm Technologies, Inc.; Quantech Services;

Sentar Incorporated; The MITRE Corporation; Washington Square

Associates, Inc.; Willbrook Solutions, Inc.; Wyle.

If an Offeror knows of another actual or potential OCI, it should identify it in its proposal and complete the requirements of Section L including a mitigation plan.

180 What is the projected date for formal RFP release? What is the anticipated award date?

The formal RFP release is scheduled for 2nd quarter FY12. The anticipated award date is September FY12.

181 Question 7 on the Past Performance Information (PPI) form asks for information about prior work "as it relates to the A&AS scope." Can your office clarify the question? We interpret "A&AS" to mean "Advisory and

Assistance Services." Does the office share that interpretation? Is "A&AS" a misprint, or does the office wish for information regarding similarity (or not) to A&AS?

The form will be revised in the formal RFP to read "UEWR & CD BIT" scope.

182 The PPI form is referred to as Attachment L‐3 and Attachment L‐1 in various places (including both on the form itself). What is your preference for how we should refer to the document?

The PPI attachment should be referred to as Attachment L‐3. The text will be updated in the formal RFP.

183 We are interested in receiving the classified portion of the Offerors'

Library, and understand that a CD will be available. We have classified storage and processing capability at our facility. How can we obtain the information?

The Government will mail Interested Offerors the classified CD/DVDs to the Offeror’s POC as listed on the Access Agreement Form. As discussed in the solicitation the interested Offerors may request access to the Offerors'

Library via email to uewr‐cobra‐dane‐test‐support@mda.mil.

Please note that the Offerors’ Library contains both classified and unclassified data. Access to the Offerors’ Library will be restricted to personnel pre‐cleared by MDA Contracting and Security Officials. It may take up to three weeks to obtain access so it is imperative to submit the request as soon as possible.

Please do not request and/or submit the Offerors' Library Access form multiple times. The data will be provided as Offerors are verified and the data becomes available.

Questions Government Responses/Answers

184 When a follow‐on CD‐ROM containing the Offerors' Library is received, should this be considered a supplement to previous versions received, or does it replace the Offerors' Library in whole?

The initial TDP disks (unclassified and classified) are to be replaced by the updated disks. Prior versions of the TDP should therefore be destroyed according to NISPOM requirements upon receipt of new TDP releases.

185 What is the status of the classified Reading Room schedule? The PCO will schedule appointments beginning 14 March 2012.

186 Section L‐08.2.4: This paragraph includes directions to “Describe your approach to mitigate issues of database integrity, …” Which database is this referring to?

Para 3.5 of the IDIQ SOW discusses the requirement for an electronic data storage library for all contract‐related data and documentation during the contract ordering period. It is assumed that this data would become part of a database. Note that Para 4.1 of the IDIQ SOW discusses legacy data and the provision of all items necessary for transition, e.g., data. This includes data recieved from the Government and the incumbent during transition. Section L‐08.2.4 specifically discusses the transition. Offerors should address their approach for maintaining data/database integrity during the transition period.

187 Section L‐08.2.4: This paragraph includes directions to “Describe your approach to mitigate issues of …traceability …” What does this refer to?

Section L‐08.2.4 is referencing the contractors ability to verify the history, location, or application of an item by means of documented record, e.g., trace previous incidents recorded in historical data received from the incumbent during transition to mitigate current issues or anomalies.

188 Paragraph 3.10.2 states “…all requirements, design and analysis will be conducted by MDA/SNE.” Subparagraph h) requests “Monte Carlo output files for each scenario, and associated configuration files (Mission Plan, Discrimination Database, System Adjustable Parameters and

Environmental Variables)”. Monte Carlo output files for test scenarios are typically categorized as analysis. Will this analysis be accomplished by

MDA/SNE or does the Government anticipate the Contractor performing this analysis for BMDS Ground Tests?

The first part of the sentence referenced in 3.10.2 states "Post‐Flight

Reconstruction (PFR)/ System Post‐Flight Reconstruction (SPFR) activities will be limited to the Test Execution phase only, all requirements...". SNE will take a lead role in any SPFR activity ONLY. The BIT contractor will be responsible for all BMDS ground test requirements as described in section

3.10.2, including Monte Carlo output files.

189 Is the scope of participation in each BMDS Ground Test events identified in

Task Order 0001 SOW paragraph 3.10.2 limited to the subparagraphs a‐k?

Similar questions arise regarding participation in Flight Test events, paragraph 3.10.3 subparagraph a‐k.

The BIT Contractor will be expected to meet all input requirements as detailed in subparagraphs a through k as well as all 3.10.2 requirements in the base SOW for all BMDS ground tests, and similarly all task order subparagraphs a through k and 3.10.3 requirements for BMDS flight tests.

7 Do you envision full‐up system level Hardware‐in‐the‐Loop (HWIL) testing or stand alone testing for Flight test pre‐mission testing?

It depends on the test objectives and level of UEWR/CD involvement.

Flight tests can consist of both HWIL and stand alone pre‐mission testing.

The level of testing required is dictated by MDA through the IMTP. FTG‐08 will require full HWIL pre‐mission testing in PCIL‐1.

45 What is the Prime Consolidated Integration Laboratory (PCIL) used for? Is there a software baseline in there?

The Prime Consolidated Integration Lab (PCIL‐1) is primarily used for pre‐ mission testing prior to GM flight testing. UEWR software used there, as in the ISTCs, must conform to the Approved Test Configuration for the specific test being run. UEWR‐Beale will be required to participate in pre‐ mission testing for FTG‐08.

As a result of the updated IMTP, the following answers have been revised.