RFP Q S Part 2 v4 05 17 12.pdf

Industry Questions and Answers

Questions Government Clarification 3 Should the prime offeror submit their EVMS compliance plan as part of the page count of the management volume, or should the offeror submit it as an attachment?

On RFP Page 61:

FAR 52.234-3(b) says that offerors must submit EVMS plans if their system has not been evaluated for compliance in the past. 3(b)(3) says that the Government will evaluate the EVMS plan before award. We have interpreted that requirement to mean that the EVMS plan must be submitted either alongside or as part of the official RFP response.

The reference to FAR 52.234-3 will be replaced with DFARS 252.234-7001 via RFP Amendment. DFARS 252.234-7002 is already included in the RFP. Additional EVMS data is contained in Policy Guidance and Information (PGI) 234.2 Earned Value Management System.

If a comprehensive plan for compliance with guidelines on ANSI/EIA- 748 is submitted, then it will be reviewed by the Cognizant Federal Agency, in this instance the Defense Contracts Management Agency.

However, it is important to note that the proposal will be evaluated strictly against the criteria published in the RFP. The EVMS compliance plan (if needed) will not be evaluated as a criteria during source selection but an offeror without an approved plan is not eligible for contract award. If an EVMS compliance plan is necessary then the offeror may include it with the cost volume. There is no page limitation associated with the EVMS compliance plan.

Questions about the submitted plan do not constitute discussions with the Offeror.

4 The final RFP makes reference to a Sept 24, 2009 memorandum, but that memorandum is not part of the library distributed earlier. Where can an offeror obtain a copy of that memorandum?

The MDA Knowledge-On-Line (MKO) IT Governance Standards and Guidelines, dated September 24, 2009, is included in the CD titled, Unclassified UEWR and CD BIT TDP v2. The MKO Government Standards and Guidelines (as it is referred to on the index) was not included in the first CD release.

5 In Section L, Attachment L-2 Past Performance Reference List, the instructions state that:

"In addition, the Offeror shall provide a brief narrative addressing relevant experience for each contract or task order."

Can you please clarify where the "brief narrative" is to be written?

There is also no space in the Excel file (PPRL) to write such narrative. Our working interpretation is to provide the narrative referenced above in the Past Performance Information section. Can you confirm MDA's desire on this?

Section L, Page 21, section L-09.2 asks for a brief narrative for each contract or task order listed on the Attachment L-2 list. Please clarify if the 10 pages in Tab 2 consist of the Attachment L-2 and a separate narrative for each contract listed on Attachment L-2 – or simply the Attachment L-2 Excel sheets.

There is a 10 page limit for this section of the Past Performance volume. You should be able to complete the table in 2 pages and that would leave up to 8 pages for the brief narrative.

Questions Government Clarification 6 T/O 0001 SOW 3.10.3 as it affects Exhibit B8.

T/O 0001 SOW 3.10.3 says we are to bid System Pre-Mission Testing (SPMT) as part of T/O 0001. However, it also says we are only to bid Phases 1 and 2. SPMT normally occurs after Phase 2. We perceive the Government's intent to understand SPMT resources for a flight test as part of this proposal. Having said this, is the intent that the SPMT hours be included in the upper set of tables on Exhibit B8, Tab 'CLIN 0002' (the hours that get priced) or in the lower set of tables (same Exhibit/Tab) which the instructions (L-

11.2 of Section L, page 32) say are to "demonstrate to the technical and management evaluators your staffing approach for completing these test requirements" and are "not to be included" in the T/O 0001 totals for pricing? If they are included in the upper set and priced, this inflated cost will be reflected in the SF33. It could also force us to address a non-realistic schedule and staffing profile in our IMS/staffing plan or to explain the disconnect.

The Government's intent is that all Offerors propose SPMT in the upper set of tables in Exhibit B8. Please note Exhibit B8 has been updated in RFP Amendment 1.

The current IMTP schedule could lead to FTG-08 SPMT prior to the end of Task Order 0001. For consistency during the evaluations, all Offerors should propose SMPT in the upper set of tables and the remainder of the test in the lower set with any disconnects explained in their narratives.

7 FBLR in Exhibit B1 states in columns G10 and G55 to "Insert Government Site Overhead Rate" Please confirm that this should be Contractor Site Overhead rate consistent with question/answer # 196 that states "Given there is no Government office space available, the need for Government site rates is not apparent." Meaning that there is no Government site so why would we bid Government site overhead rate?

Yes, the words "Government Site" in cells G10 and G55 of Exhibit B1 are an error. You are correct in your assumption that there is no Government office space available and there is no need for a Government site overhead rate.

8 FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, is included on page 66 of the RFP.

This clause requires offerors to provide a compensation plan for professional employees.

Parts (a) and (d) make clear that this compensation plan must be included in the proposal.

Does this requirement extend to subcontractors?

Where in the proposal would MDA like the compensation plan? As part of the Management Volume, Cost Volume, or as a separate attachment?

The Government is removing FAR 52.222-46 via RFP Amendment.

The compensation plan will not be required.

9 SOW 1.4 – The SOW requires that “The WBS shall maintain the SOW numbering convention by maintaining the SOW language with WBS level language added through sub indentures”. The CSDR included in Section J Attachment 5, however, has a different WBS structure than the SOW and indicates that it expects to see those in the Contractor WBS Dictionary. Can you provide any clarifying information on the expected structure of

CWBS?

The IDIQ SOW language will be revised via RFP Amendment to remove any conflict between the DD Form 2794, Cost and Software Data Reporting Plan and the IDIQ SOW Paragraph 1.4. The Government anticipates that the text will be changed to the following:

"The WBS shall maintain the numbering convention depicted in the Government approved DD Form 2794, Cost and Software Data Reporting Plan."

Questions Government Clarification 10 SOW 3.1.5 – The last sentence does not include what to prepare the IMS IAW. Cross referencing to Section L, can we assume it meant IAW DI-MGMT-81650?

Yes. The last sentence in the IDIQ SOW para 3.1.5 is an artifact resulting from the process of generally removing IDIQ SOW Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) references. The DID reference is included in CDRL A006.

11 SOW 3.1.8.1 – Is it the Government’s intention that we create and maintain an IDE repository separate from MKO that is stood up and administered by the Contractor or can we create a Team Site within MKO and manage that for our IDE?

Yes, the Government's intention is that the Contractor create and maintain an IDE repository separate from MKO. As suggested in the first sentence of the IDIQ SOW para 3.1.8.1.2, the Government desires "Access to program data on Contractor-managed systems...".

The Government will entertain the benefits of a Team Site within MKO for limited, specific/approved content. Implementation of a solution using an existing secure corporate gateway or other secure, cost-effective, best practice method is acceptable as discussed in para

3.1.8.1.2 and following.

12 The Answer to Question 134 stated that the Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) requirement in Section L-10.7 would be updated. However, this requirement remains.

Please clarify how contractors who do not have FPRA’s should proceed. Is this requirement at the Prime level or for Major subs as well?

Section L-10.7 was updated in the final RFP by the addition of the words "or this Exhibit" referring to Exhibits B5 & B6. So to clarify, Offerors (Prime & Major Subs) that do not have FPRA's shall provide exhibits in the format of RFP Exhibits B5 & B6 for each indirect rate proposed.

13 We understand per the SOW and Q&A that the Government is providing labs for work during test events. Since the contractor staff will be at Government facilities during these events, can we utilize Government Site rates, with Contractor site rates for remaining portions of the work? If so, will the cost template be modified to allow for this or can we modify it ourselves?

There is no expectation on the ratio of analysis work to be done at the ARC versus offsite. The Contractor may propose Government site rates or Contractor site rates as appropriate.

See draft RFP Questions 49 and 196.

Cost exhibits may be modified by Offerors to conform to Offerors cost accounting system.

14 The draft RFP Q&A’s state that the BOE should be to the 5th level- but the Section L- Exhibit B8 template is at the 2nd level. Please clarify if the BOE should be presented at the 5th level in Exhibit B8.

Exhibit B8 is a summary of man hours by T/O 0001 SOW paragraph and CLIN. The BOEs in the Total Resources Volume should be at WBS level 5.

Questions Government Clarification 15 Has the government considered the risk and dynamic nature of the test program and how that will affect cost estimates associated with a FFP+IF contract structure? Will the Government consider utilizing a CPFF structure to lower the expected cost estimates and mitigate the considerable risk that the small business primes will have to absorb? If it isn’t possible to change the current type for T/O 0001, will the Government considering using CPFF for future task orders?

The Government has considered the risk and dynamic nature of the test program when establishing the Fixed Price Incentive (Firm Target) - share ratios above and below target. Further, the Government has established a Cost plus Fixed Fee Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) associated with advanced planning for potential future tests and changes or special situations as discussed in IDIQ SOW paragraph 5. T/O 0001 is representative of the approach for future annual task orders. The Government is not entertaining CPFF beyond the description offered in the IDIQ SOW paragraph 5.

16 H-03 Delivery Task Orders discusses a DPLH specified in the Schedule. The current Schedule does not require for DPLH submittal for T/O 0001. Is this required?

H-03 is a mandatory MDA clause for all IDIQ Contracts. We do not plan to use the DLPH approach on Task Orders under this contract.

We price the task orders based on hours using a menu of hourly rates -

- however, once the task order is awarded, the task becomes completion type and the FPI incentive applies.

17 H-03 discussions LOE or Completion type efforts, is this for CPFF efforts or FPI? All Task Orders on this contract are completion type. The scope of each Task Order will be agreed upon at the time the Task Order is placed. Recognize that this means up to the completion of the test activities specified in each Task Order, however, completion of the Task Order's scope is not necessarily the same as the completion of all phases of a test event.

18 Is the Government Planning Pre-Test runs at the ARC prior to field testing for Ground Test Distributed (GTD)?

No, pre-test runs will not be made at the ARC. All benchmarking for GTD testing will be done at the radar sites. GTD test cases are normally a subset of test cases run during the corresponding Ground Test Integrated (GTI) test event.

19 Section – Exhibit B1-B7 – Tabs B5 and B6 (for indirect rates) requires indirect information by Cost Element for the past 3 years and all five years of the proposed effort.

However, Section L 10.7 Page 31 – Exhibit B5 and Exhibit B6 – requires this information for the past 3 years and only the first 2 years of this effort. We think it is unrealistic that a small business can predict each indirect cost pool by cost element for 5 years. We request that the Exhibit B5-B5 requirement for indirect rates for out years be changed to match the Section L 10.7 requirements.

The requirement for these exhibits is to provide details for three past Contractor fiscal years and only the "first two contract periods".

These exhibits have columns for "Contractor Fiscal Years". We believe it is possible for two Contractor Fiscal Years to overlap one contract period. Therefore, Offeror need only fill out the columns necessary in accordance with their fiscal year. The columns for fiscal years that do not contribute to the first two contract periods may be left blank.

Questions Government Clarification 20 Is the Contractor responsible for providing on-console test operators at MDIOC for GTD

Tests?

No. The Government will have a Sensors Mission Manager on site at the MDIOC for interaction with the system test team. The UEWR & CD BIT Contractor will need to have at least one test manager at each of the respective radar sites during GTD testing, but all on-console radar operators during the test will be operational Air Force personnel.

21 Is Post Flight Reconstruction (PFR) for flight tests required after Phase 5? On a system level, the IMTP defines whether or not a System Post Flight Reconstruction (SPFR) will be held in the check boxes detailed in the test objectives section of the Test Configuration Sheet. For UEWR & CD, no element level PFR will be held, but the radars will participate in a SPFR as required.

22 The test event dates in the Final RFP T/O 0001 differ from the IMTP 12.1. Which takes precedent?

The test event dates in the task order were meant to mirror the IMTP v12.1. After a close examination, the only discrepancy we found was the GTI-04 (N/P) Runs for Record window in Task Order 0001 mistakenly used the quarter for Benchmarking instead of RFR. That will be corrected in an update for TO 0001.

23 L-09.4 states that the Past Performance Questionnaires are due no later than proposal due date, please clarify if this is the overall proposal due date or the due date for the past performance volume.

Any questionnaire not received by the overall proposal due date will cause the Government to contact the questionnaire POC directly, as stated in paragraph L-09.4.

24 What will be used to determine the total value of the contract? This is important in determining the EVMS Requirements.

The Government expects the total of 5 years of task orders to exceed $50M. The actual potential contract value will be the sum of all CLIN values.

25 L-04.4.2: Tab I, Overarching Management Approach is listed is Table L-04-1, but is not listed in Section L-08.1, page 19, Section L. This requirement is allotted 15 of the 100 pages for the Management Volume, yet no instructions as to content are shown in Section L, and no evaluation criteria is specified in Section M.

Table L-04-1 Volume Organization will be corrected via RFP Amendment.

The Overarching Management Approach listed as Tab 1 in Volume III, Management & Small Business Compliance, will be eliminated and the page count allocated to the remaining tabs.

Tab 1: Reserved;

Tab 2: Staffing Plan - 30 pages;

Tab 3: Program Management Plan - 28 Pages;

Tab 4: Integrated Master Schedule - 25 pages;

Tab 5: Transition Plan - 17 Pages;

Tab 6: Small Business Compliance Plan - unlimited.

Questions Government Clarification 26 L-04.4.2: Tab 1, Overarching Technical Approach is listed is Table L-04-1, but is not listed in Section L-07.2.1, page 18, Section L. This requirement is allotted 100 pages for the Technical Volume, yet no instructions as to content is shown in Section L, and no evaluation criteria is specified in Section M.

Also, are the Technical subfactors to be divided by subfactors with tabs? Are there page limitations on each section as there is on the Management Volume?

Table L-04-1 Volume Organization will be corrected via RFP Amendment.

The Overarching Technical Approach listed as Tab 1 in Volume II Technical will be eliminated and the following Tabs listed without specific page count.

Tab 1: Test Planning and Execution;

Tab 2: Analysis Support;

Tab 3: Test Infrastructure.

The overall Volume II page count must not exceed 100 pages.

27 L-04.7, L-06.5: Section L-04.7 Table of Contents, states “Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents (with hyperlinks in the electronic version)… The Master Table of Contents contained in Volume I shall be a consolidation of the individual tables of contents for all Volumes.”

Section L-06.5 Proposal Master Table of Contents states, “This tab shall contain a master table of contents (with hyperlinks in the electronic version) of the entire proposal.”

Is the Government expecting hyperlinks between volumes in the Master Table of Contents?

See draft RFP round 1 Question 116. The proposal disks do not have to be inter‐linked. However, each individual disk should have its own linked table of contents. Section L-06.4 will be changed to simply state, "This tab shall contain a master table of contents of the entire proposal."

28 L-05.3: Please clarify what is meant by the “Electronic file directory titles” and how “each directory, with hyperlinks in the electronic version, shall contain a Master Table of Contents for that Volume”.

Is this Master Table of Contents, separate from the Volume Table of Contents?

What is an electronic file directory?

Paragraph L-05.3 assumes there will be a listing of "titles" that populate a given "directory." Paragraph L-05.3 further assumes the "directories" will be maintained "electronically" in a "file."

The Master Table of Contents in Volume 1 is a consolidation of the individual table of contents of all volumes as well as the contents of Volume 1 as referenced in paragraph L-04.7. Each volume will have a Master Table of Contents. The Government does not anticipate the hyperlinks in Volume 1 to electronically link with data contained in other volumes.

Electronic hyperlinks are anticipated only as they are supportable within the software limitations.

As discussed draft RFP in round 1 Question 116; "The proposal disks do not have to be inter‐linked. However, each disk should have its own linked table of contents."

29 L-04.4.2: In the Page Limit column of Table L-04-1, it states that the Volume I, Executive Summary, Tab 5 Cross Reference Matrix is limited to 1 spreadsheet.

Unpopulated, this matrix is 4 pages in length.

The Government anticipates the Proposal Cross Reference Matrix will be contained in a single MS Excel spreadsheet, not a single sheet of paper. The Government does not anticipate the need to constrain the page count by imposing a limit.

Questions Government Clarification 30 L-06.3, L-04.4.2: Table L-04-1 states that the Tab 3, Summary Information is limited to 5 pages. Can the page limit be increased to enable a response that includes the following information from Section L-06.3:

• Concise narrative of entire proposal

• Significant risks

• Key or unique features

• Specify where material may be found for each major element of the evaluation

• Salient features tied to Section M

• Length of proposal offer

• Team arrangements

• Company relationships

• Identify all subcontractors, partnerships and joint venture partners

• Brief description of planned roles

• List of participating divisions and locations

• Status of teaming agreements

• Organization chart of team with key personnel

• How offer’s team fits within the company

• Entire chain of command with name, title, division, and location

• Reporting line and names, title and division and location of personnel responsible for quality assurance

• POC phone numbers

• POC for award information.

L-06.3, L-04.4.2: Table L-04-1, Volume 1 Executive Summary, Tab 3 page count will be changed to 12 pages via RFP Amendment.

31 SOW, L-08.2.2, & M-06.2.2 reference “Developmental Lab Maintenance” as part of the Program Management Plan. We have been unable to locate any additional information in the RFP as to the definition of Developmental Lab Maintenance. Is there any work scope to be accomplished in any of the Developmental Labs versus the System Test Labs?

In these sections the RFP reference to "Developmental Test Labs" will be replaced with System Test Labs via RFP Amendment. There is no other scope outside of ISTC-1, ISTC-2 and PCIL-1.

Questions Government Clarification 32 SOW 3.1.1.1, Section L-08.2.2, Section M-06.2.2: In the SOW 3.1.1.3, Program

Management Plan, it is required that the Program Management Plan include the following:

• Establish the project organization, structure, authority, roles, responsibilities, internal reporting relationships, and identify associate stakeholders, (e.g., managing Subcontractor, Teaming partners, joint venture partners and/or Associates)

• Define the interface between the project and the Government

• Define the roles relative to other corporate units and interfaces between the project and other corporate units, e.g., identifying and resolving potential resource conflicts associated with multiple, independent Government contractors engaged in on-going Advanced Research Center (ARC) efforts

• Establish reporting requirements (project-to-corporation and project-to-Government)

• Clearly identify all Government Furnished Property (GFP), Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), and Government Furnished Information (GFI), Government Furnished Services (GFS) and associated need dates required for performance of this contract

• Establish project management procedures and policies • Incorporate by reference the project IMS

• Discuss program management of budget, cost control, and excursions based upon surge, reach-back and unique event execution

Section L-08.2.2 and M-06.2.2 do not reference organization, structure, authority, roles, responsibilities, reporting relationships, interfaces, etc. in outlining how this Subfactor will be presented and evaluated.

The SOW language describes the full requirement for the Program Management Plan (PMP). The Offerors' PMP should contain all items referenced in the IDIQ SOW and T/O 0001, Section 3.1.

The first sentence of L-08.2.2 beginning with "Describe your approach to provide Program Management..." is not meant to constrain the PMP to only those items listed in the sentence but to ensure the Offeror does not overlook the need to discuss Business Operations, Contract Management, Security, Program Operations, Risk, Developmental Labs Maintenance and Safety, Quality, and Mission Assurance.

33 Section L-10.3.3 (Additional Cost/Price Volume Instructions) directs Offerors to enter $312,000.00 for ODCs and travel in CLIN 0011 into Schedule B. Does this figure contemplate that CLIN 0011 will be used for Consultant Labor as suggested by Rows 32 and 33 of the Exhibit B7 template? If not, should we enter the $312,000.00 figure into Row 36 of Exhibit B7 and ignore the other rows in the ODC section?

No, the $312,000.00 for ODCs and travel does not contemplate consultant labor. If you need to add a labor category, add it using exhibits B1 or B2 in conjunction with B3 and B4. On these exhibits, add additional labor categories to the bottom of the list where the RFP labor category “Other (Define)” is list.

Exhibit B7 is for contract phase-in only. Do not enter the $312,000.00 for ODCs and travel on Exhibit B7. The cost elements listed on B7 are not intended to suggest anything. These cost elements are purely boilerplate placeholders that MDA anticipates will be replaced with the genuine cost elements needed to conduct a successful contract phase-in.

Questions Government Clarification 34 Task Order 0001, Appendix A (Data Deliverables) refers to CDRL A006. Should this read CDRL A007 per the revised CDRL numbering?

Yes, Task Order 0001 SOW Appendix A: Data Deliverables should identify CDRL A007, Technical Reports as the appropriate CDRL.

The Task Order will be corrected via RFP Amendment to show the Government's intent.

35 Based on the response to draft RFP round 2 question 135 and the layout of Section L Exhibit B8, our assumption is that the costs associated with SOW 3.1 – 3.8 activities are to be allocated across existing Task Order 0001 CLINs. Is this correct?

Yes, that is correct.

36 Exhibit B8: It appears that "Sec L - Exhibit_B8_UEWR_CD__Test_BOE_Sum 04.25.12.xlsx" has not been synchronized with changes in Task Order 0001.

Will updated BOE spreadsheets be provided that align with the updated TO 0001 SOW?

The incorrect sheet was included in the final RFP. A correct sheet matching the updated Task Order 0001 will be posted via RFP Amendment.

# Question Government Clarification

RD 1 Q&A 101: Follow-up Question. Response to Question 101 states, "During the transition period, the incumbent prime contractor is responsible for test activities." Does this imply then that there should be no cost associated with CLINS 0001 - 0010 (and specifically 0001, 0002, 0004, 0005) during the transition period?

That is correct. All transition costs should be included in

CLIN 0012.

IDIQ SOW 3.10.2.2.3: SOW reads, "The Contractor shall conduct pre-test analysis for Pre-Mission Test / System Pre-Mission Test (PMT/SPMT) and participate in Joint Analysis Team (JAT) activities." Since PMT/SPMT is typically associated with Flight Tests, should the statement be modified to refer to Ground Tests in place of PMT/SPMT? Or how should the bidder understand the role of PMT/SPMT as relates to BMDS Ground Testing.

An amendment to the RFP will revise this so that it refers to ground test. PMTs are a part of flight testing, but elements of a PMT will involve HWIL representations in the system test lab.

In the final paragraph of 3.10.5.3, it is stated that, "The contractor shall develop and integrate the required scenarios, RCS files, trajectory files, and execute predictive scenario runs or pathfinder runs using digital and HWIL models as available." Is it the Government's intent for the BIT contractor to "develop" SSF/OSF scenario data (RCS, trajectory, scenario files, etc.) and provide SSF/OSF execution support?

No. The UEWR & CD BIT contractor will be required to integrate the SSF files into a format compatible for a COBRA DANE HWIL representation.

IDIQ SOW 3.10.5.3: SOW states, "The Contractor shall upgrade the component software in a BMDS System Test Lab (STL) such as ISTC- 1 or ISTC-2, or at the contractor’s System Test Facility to comply with the EGT test description."

Does upgrade imply that the BIT contractor is required to modify the UEWR or CD source code? Or does this mean that the BIT contractor will coordinate installation of the appropriate existing software build?

The latter. In this case, "upgrade" only implies moving from an older software version to a newer one. All radar source code work is done on a separate contract.

IDIQ SOW 3.10.5.3: SOW states, "The Contractor shall upgrade the component software in a BMDS System Test Lab (STL) such as ISTC- 1 or ISTC-2, or at the contractor’s System Test Facility to comply with the EGT test description."

Did the government intend to state "contractor's System Test Facility" or is this intended to be PCIL at the ARC, as indicated elsewhere in the SOW?

The government is examining different paths and there is a possibility that Element Ground Testing will be done at facilities outside of the ARC. The RFP will be amended so that it refers to "another contractor or government System Test Facility".

IDIQ SOW App C.3.2: SOW indicates that, "2. Integrated System Test Center (ISTC)-1, ISTC-2 and PCIL Laboratories in Huntsville, AL with access, office space for up to 10 personnel, computer network support, telephones, and HWIL strings for the UEWR & CD".

Subsequent Q&A have indicated that no office space is available at the ARC. Are we to assume the office space for up to 10 people is only available during test events or is it permanently available over the duration of the contract?

The RFP will be amended so that it refers to "operator rooms" vice "office space". Those UEWR and CD rooms as seen during the Industry Day Tours will be available to the BIT contractor on a continuous basis.

TO 0001 3.9: SOW states, "The Contractor shall perform operation and sustainment of HWIL equipment at ISTC-1 and ISTC-2 as necessary to sustain BM1 level of readiness."

Does this mean to imply that PCIL will not be used during execution of Task Order 0001, or that it will not be continuously maintained at BM1, or was the omission of PCIL in this statement a possible oversight?

PCIL-1 will be used during pre-mission testing for FTG-08.

However, PCIL-1 will not be continuously maintained at a BM1 state of readiness because of its infrequent use.

TO 0001 3.10.2: SOW under the BMDS Ground Test section 3.10.2 states "PFR/SPFR activities will be limited to the Test Execution phase only, and all requirements, design and analysis will be conducted by MDA/SNE." We understand the role of PFR/SPFR in Flight Test Analysis Phase support, but please confirm that PFR/SPFR activities are expected to occur in the execution of BMDS Ground Test.

You are correct, PFR/SPFR occur during the final analysis phase (Phase 5). The sentence only implies that the PFR activities will be limited to day-of-flight trajectories.

TO 0001 3.10.3: If parts of 3.10.3 (a) - (k) do not occur during Phases 1 & 2, and do not directly relate to SPMT, should Offeror's not include those inputs in our response? For example, post-mission reporting products, such as the MDA Flash Report are listed, but this would be part of Phase 5 that is not within Task Order 0001 scope.

Your technical response should include all aspects of flight testing. Labor hours for FTG-08 should only include Phase 1, 2 and SPMT for Task Order 0001 costing.

L- 06.2 Tab 2: Instructions request listing of "Labor surplus area designation". The term Labor surplus area "designation" can not be found. "Designation of labor surplus areas" information is available.

Please provide details of what specific information is being requested, including location of information being requested.

References to "Labor Surplus Area" will be removed from Section L via RFP amendment.

L-06.2 Tab 5: For, Past Performance Volume, Tab 5 has two different titles:

L-04.4.2 Page 10 "Tab 5: Partnering Agreements" and L-09.5 Page 23 "Tab 5: Subcontractor Consent Letters".

Please clarify which title is desired by Government in our response.

L-04.4.2 page 10, Tab 5 will be re-labeled "Subcontractor Consent Letters" via RFP amendment.

L-06.7 Tab 7: Section L states that Tab 7 of the Executive Summary contains the "Organization Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan". The Executive Summary is to be delivered with the full proposal. The RFP Cover letter states that an "OCI Mitigation Plan" is to be delivered on May 30th. Please confirm that the OCI Plan is to be submitted twice - once on May 30 and again with the Executive Summary.

Yes, submit the OCI plan twice. The OCI Plan and the OCI Mitigation Plan are meant to be the same document.

Section L PPQ: The Section L specifies that Tab 4 PPQs are limited to 50 pages. The PPQ template is 5 pages and we are allowed up to 10 contracts and 2 POCs per contract. Based on this, it is conceivable that the total page count could reach as much as 100 pages. Please clarify whether more than 50 pages is allowed for Tab 4.

Past Performance Questionnaires are to be sent to the Government or client POCs and are not included in the page count because the completed questionnaires will be submitted by the POCs directly to the Contracting Officer.

Since there is a 10 page allocation in the PPRL section: do we include the actual Awards Fee Letters from the government for award fee-type contract in this section?

The Award Fee determination official letters and briefings are not subject to the 10 page limit. The RFP will be amended to reflect this change.

In section 3.1.8.1.3 Unclassified IDE, the text states that the IDE must be compatible with the “current standard business suite of software deployed by the MDA/SN Project Office.” Can the Government please state the type and version of the current standard business suite of software in use by MDA/SN?

Microsoft Office 2007

What is the current status of the MDA CNET architecture? At which sites is CNET currently integrated/available?

The Government does not plan to discuss the status of the MDA CNET architecture at this time.

The Government does not wish to discuss the MDA CNET availability in detail. However, it can be assumed, for purposes of the proposal, that an electronic means is available to transmit classified data.

This questions is in reference to test reporting and briefing deliverables described in Task Order SOW 0001 Appendix A “For each test event assigned under Task Order 0001, a Draft and Final version (1 each) of the following shall be delivered under Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) A006:” Item 10 indicates the 90 Test Report is to be submitted under CDRL A006. Should this be CDRL A024 Test Reports?

CDRL A024 Test Reports identifies “4 Deliverables for each test event” and proceeds to identify; a Quick Look Test Report: for each BMDS Flight Test mission; 21-Day Analysis Brief: for each BMDS Flight Test; a 30-Day Final Test Reports for each BMDS Flight Test;

and a 90-day Final Test Reports: for each BMDS System Ground Test

The lead in sentence stipulates 4 deliverables for each test event, while the subsequent detail seems to indicate different deliverables required based on test type. Is this accurate?

This response applies to questions 53-56.

The RFP will be amended to eliminate CDRL A024. All references to it will be changed to A007 in both the IDIQ SOW and Task Order 0001.

Task Order 0001 SOW, Appendix A indicates the 21 Day Analysis Brief is a deliverable under CDRL A006, but this deliverable appears in A024. Please clarify.

Should there be a deliverable under CDRL A024 for Flash Report? No. Flash Reports are done by System Mission Managers very shortly after the completion of a test with minimal input from the elements.

Is information assurance testing within the scope of this contract? If so, can the government provide a schedule of IA testing required?

See IDIQ SOW paragraph 3.1.8.3.6.3 and para 3.5.1 for a discussion of Information Assurance testing. However, the operation, control and maintenance (including Information Assurance) of operational radar sites, Thule, Fylingdales, COBRA DANE, etc., are outside the scope of this solicitation.

The Government does not plan to provide a schedule of IA testing required.

Reference Section L-09.3 Past Performance Information (Section L, Attachment L-3). The government has changed the requirement for past performance information from the Prime, minimum of three and a maximum of 5 recent and relevant contracts (precisely what was suggested in Question 113), where there was no minimum previously identified. The Request for Information requested that industry only detail relevant experience that demonstrates their ability to perform the effort described. Similarly, the Draft RFP seemed to indicate the same. The Q&A response did indicate that this requirement was under review. What, during the government’s review, led to the decision to incorporate the requirement change suggested in Question 113 (Q&A Round 1)?

If an offeror demonstrates relevant and recent high quality performance and experience in one or two contracts of similar size and scope (across the majority of the SOW), what additional value does a second, third or more past performance provide with respect to impact on the government’s risk assessment?

What are the BETDs for the test events listed in the TO 0001 SOW? There are no better fidelity Best Estimated Test Dates (BETD) for the test events than what is described in IMTP 12.1 provided in the classified Technical Data Package (TDP).

This response applies to questions 59-60.

Section L-09.3 will be changed via an amendment to the RFP to remove the minimum requirement of three PPIs from the Prime.

Since the RFP release, there are testing conflicts that will likely impact the schedule anticipated for Ground Tests identified in TO 0001 SOW. Does the government intend provide an amendment to account for these anticipated changes in schedule, should they impact the scope of TO 0001 SOW? If indeed schedule slips cause a change in scope for TO 0001 prior to RFP due date and/or contract award, how will the government determine the initial Task Order value versus that which is proposed by the successful offeror?

See draft RFP question 123 and answer.

Bid to the requirements of the RFP.

For past performance information that describes performance as a subcontractor, is it acceptable for the Prime contractor to evaluate offeror performance using the Past Performance Questionnaires? In this case does the government require a government POC familiar with the Prime contract?

Yes and Yes.

Can the government identify which, if any, property listed in the GFP listing it will require the offeror to control in accordance with their Government Approved Property Management System?

None of the property listed in the GFP list will be accountable to the contractor as it is maintained under another contract.

How much flexibility will MDA accept in the Cost/Price exhibits associated with innovative cost savings approaches? Are we allowed to modify the exhibits or change any spreadsheet exhibit calculations?

Offeror may modify the cost/price exhibits to comply with the offerors cost accounting system and competitive approach.

Does the page count for the Past Performance Information sheets include the three pages of template provided in the Final RFP, Section L, Attachment L-3 (similarly for the Past Performance Questionnaire)? Was the government’s decision to reduce the page count by 30 pages, from 75 in the Draft to 45 in the Final, to account for those that are consumed by the template?

Yes, the template is included in that page count. As previously stated, the Past Performance Questionnaires are not included in the page count as they are forwarded to the client or Government customers.

RFP Section L10.2 states "For pricing purposes, an estimated start date in 4th quarter FY12 is to be used for the overall effort." Will the government consider providing a more definitive Task Order 0001 Period of Performance start date for the purposes of evaluating and comparing cost proposals received from multiple offerors?

The ordering period for this contract is estimated to begin on 20 September 2012.

Nevertheless, the cost proposal needs to be good for a 240-day window.

In order to comply with security requirements for implementation of the Classified IDE, will the government be providing encryption hardware as GFE, or is the intent for the contractor to procure this equipment?

For the purpose of this response, the segregation in cryptographic systems that contain sensitive or classified plaintext information is referred to as "RED". Those that carry encrypted information, or ciphertext are referred to as "BLACK". In circumstances where encryption hardware is nonexistent, the Government will provide the following as GFE: the BLACK router, encryption hardware, and RED router. There is an Information Assurance (IA) requirement established by the U.S. Defense Security Service (DSS) that requires a “local firewall” prior to connection with the RED router. Neither the local firewall, nor any additional networking, security or infrastructure hardware beyond the RED router (or inside the company), is provided by the Government.

L-11.2 indicates that Exhibit B-8 must show "resources necessary to successfully complete the specific test on a subsequent task order if needed." Does this mean the resources necessary to complete all 5 phases, regardless of which phases are listed in the Task 01 SOW? For example, for GTX-06a (see Table in Task Order SOW 3.10.2) should we give resources needed to perform Phase 1, or Phases 1-5?

No. The upper tables of Exhibit B8 on CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0005 should include all resources necessary for the Task Order 0001 period of performance. The lower tables of those CLIN sheets should include the remainder of the efforts necessary for each specific test. In the case of GTX-06a, Phase 1 should be included in the upper GTX-06a table and become a part of the Task Order 0001 total resources. Phases 2 through 5 should be included in the lower GTX-06a table for evaluation purposes.

Note: Exhibit B8 is updated in RFP Amendment 0001 to more closely match Task Order 0001.

Our team interprets the Cost Volume Instructions to permit the following configuration for the Cost proposal(s):

A) The Total Resource Volume (submitted by the Prime) contains the hours for each CLIN;

B) The Total Resource Volume and Exhibit B3 (each submitted by the Prime) indicate the proportion of hours worked by each major sub on each

CLIN;

C) Major Subs do not need to submit hours in their Cost Volumes, because those hours are already accounted for in the Prime BOEs;

D) Major Subs do submit rate information in Exhibits B1, B5, and B6 (assuming the Majors have no minor subs themselves, otherwise also B2 and B3).

E) We believe that under such a regime, the following instruction from L-10.02 is inapplicable to major subs:

Account for all Direct Labor Hours necessary to complete requirements of Task Order 0001 and reconcile with the hours proposed in the Total Resources Volume VI. Does MDA agree?

F) Put differently, we believe that a Major Sub fulfills that requirement by making reference to, but not duplicating, the Prime's Cost and Total Resource Volumes. Does MDA agree?

A. The Total Resource Volume (submitted by the Prime) contains the hours for all CLINs with work included in the scope of Task Order 0001.

B. The Total Resource Volume and Exhibit B3 (each submitted by the Prime) indicate the proportion of hours worked by each major and minor sub all CLINs with work included in the scope of Task Order 0001 combined.

C. MDA agrees Major Subs do not need to submit hours in their Cost Volumes, because those hours are already accounted for in the Prime BOEs

D. Yes. Major Subs do submit rate information in Exhibits B1, B5, and B6 (assuming the Majors have no minor subs themselves, otherwise also B2 and B3).

E. The Government agrees.

F. The Government agrees.