FBO R4 UEWR.CD BIT QAs 04 09 12.pdf

Industry

Questions and Answers

Questions Government Responses/Answers 190 Does the Government expect the bidders to utilize each of the

Government Work Breakdown Schedule (WBS) elements identified in the Draft Cost and Software Data Reporting Plan (CSDR) (DD FORM 2794), or is it acceptable to tailor the Contractor Work Breakdown Schedule (CWBS) for our proposed solution?

The Government provided Draft CSDR is based upon the IDIQ Statement of Work (SOW). Offerors may submit a tailored CWBS per their specific proposal, however the CSDR corresponds to the SOW with an additional level of indenture that portrays how we report costs as a result of the Integrated Master Test Plan (IMTP).

The CSDR is amendable to provide more clarification of costs by providing additional level(s) of detail, however deletion of elements is not acceptable. If the Offeror is not presenting costs to the provided CSDR Plan, the assumption will be that there is no cost for that element.

191 There are different test events identified in the recently published Cost and Software Data Reporting Plan (CSDR) (DD FORM 2794) versus the Draft Task Order 0001 Statement of Work (SOW).

Should we assume the CSDR plan lists the test events to which we will be bidding on Task Order 0001?

The Government provided Draft CSDR is based upon the IDIQ Statement of Work (SOW). Offerors should propose to the formal RFP when it is released.

192 What can we expect to be turned over by the incumbent upon their transition out? Does the Government intend to provide a list of deliverables to be provided by the incumbent during transition In/Out? Paragraph 4.1 of the IDIQ SOW indicates in general what can be expected, but a more specific list would allow the development of a more accurate and seamless transition plan.

The Government does not intend to list any additional deliverables beyond those already listed in the IDIQ SOW.

193 IDIQ SOW paragraph 1.2.3 implies the transition period is 3 months.

Paragraph 4.1 indicates 60 days. The 60 day requirement is reinforced by the Q&A and the Task Order 0001 SOW Section 4.

Paragraph 4.2 of the IDIQ SOW indicates a transition out period of 90 days. Is the transition period 3 months (90 days) or 2 months (60 Days)?

The Government plans to have an incoming transition period for the new UEWR & CD BIT Contractor of a maximum of 60 days. It is up to the Offerors to propose a comprehensive transition plan giving the amount of time needed to be fully up to speed with a full team as described in the IDIQ SOW. Also, paragraph 4.2 of the IDIQ SOW refers to the outgoing transition at the end of the contract that will not be any longer than 90 days. However, Task Order 0001 discusses only transition in activities. Transition out may be discussed in a future Task Order after contract award.

194 Task Order 0001 SOW paragraph 3.10.2 states that the Contractor shall be responsible for providing the following input for each BMDS Ground Test: “Monte Carlo output files for each scenario, and associated configuration files (Mission Plan, Discrimination Database, System Adjustable Parameters and Environmental Variables)”. Can the Government clarify what the intent is for the Contractor providing the Discrimination Database?

The Government will provide the discrimination database (including environmental variables) to the UEWR & CD BIT Contractor, with Government input and recommendation prior to testing.

195 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?

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.

This question was addressed in questions 188 and 189 of Round 3 Q&As.

196 The RFP Section L, Cost Volume instructions does not request Contractors to identify Contractor site versus Government site rates.

What is the expectation for anticipated performance at Government versus Contractor facilities?

Given there is no Government office space available, the need for Government site rates is not apparent.

This question was addressed in question 49 of Round 1 Q&As.

Industry

Questions and Answers

Questions Government Responses/Answers 197 Reference IDIQ SOW paragraph 3.5.1 “The Contractor shall develop a stand-alone Information Assurance (IA) Administrator's Guide (AG) (CDRL A016) and IA User’s Guide (UG) (CDRL A017) for Radars IAW the system accreditation process. The Contractor shall develop processes and procedures to meet the requirements of the DoDD 8500.1 and DoDI 8500.2, to include, but not be limited to Incident Response, Disaster Recovery, Continuity of Operations, and Information Assurance Vulnerability Alerts (IA VA) documented in the AG and UG.” Previous Q&A indicated that IA of the Radars was an activity for which the USAF is responsible. Can the Government please clarify the UEWR & CD BIT Contractor responsibility with respect to IA, AG and UG development for the Radars? Is Radar System accreditation a requirement for UEWR & CD BIT?

IA, AG, and UG responsibility with respect to the UEWR & CD BIT Contractor is limited to direct operations in which the UEWR & CD BIT Contractor is in direct control. Operations in which the USAF is in control are not subject to this requirement. Radar System Accreditation is a function of the USAF and at this time not subject to the UEWR & CD BIT.

198 Reference IDIQ SOW 3.8.1. Safety. Some of the reporting requirements identified in this paragraph appear to be more applicable to Contractors and Government personnel that operate Government owned Contractor operated facilities. The IDIQ SOW does not identify any system development that would be applicable to these reporting requirements. Can the Government identify the systems, facilities, or environments for which the UEWR & CD BIT Contractor will be developing the System Safety Hazard Analysis Report, Safety Assessment Report (SAR), and the Health Hazard Assessment Report? Do these apply to prime Contractor facilities, Subcontractor facilities, Government facilities, or all of the above?

These reports apply to prime Contractor facilities, Subcontractor facilities, Government facilities, or essentially "all of the above" as stated in the question. Specifically reporting requirements are in reference to the test activity discussed in the IDIQ SOW and Task Order 0001 SOW. Existing plans for accident prevention and facility safety should be utilized. Accident reporting shall be as described in the IDIQ SOW by the MDA Directive and in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidance.

Any test activities that add to, or increase, hazards as identified in the SAR or HHAR shall be documented and mitigated according to MDA Assurance Provisions (MAP) and MIL-STD-882, as referenced in the IDIQ SOW.

199 Will the Request for Proposal (RFP) be released at end of month, or will there be an announcement at end of month of expected RFP release date? Can the Government please provide any information on acquisition schedule for this solicitation?

Please continue to watch FedBizOpps for RFP release.

200 Our company has provided long-term, continuous support to a particular customer that we wish to cite in the Past Performance Questionnaire/Past Performance Information Sheet. However, this continuous support has changed contract vehicles several times over the period of relevancy. So that the support effort does not appear artificially short-term or below actual value, may we combine these into a single submission as long as we specify contracts, values, PoPs, etc.?

In cases like this, list the continuous activity once but list all contracts and subcontracts where the work was performed to enable the Government to verify your past performance.