DRFP_R4_Q A_09.26.14.pdf

LRDR DRFP: HQ0147-14-R-0002

Industry Questions and Answers Round 4

Number

Sequence

RFP Section Questions/Comments Responses/Answers

DRFP-018 Sections B & E Section E of the RFP includes both FOB Destination and

FOB Origin FAR clauses; however, Section B specifies all

CLINs as being FOB Destination. Please clarify.

Section E will be revised to indicate that Spares under

CLIN 0003 will be inspected and accepted at origin. The

F.O.B. Origin clauses will apply to that CLIN.

DRFP-035 Section J: SOW

Section 3.1.7

When is the contractor required to provide an FSO and an

IAO/ISO at the deployment site -- Only for CLIN 0001, or also during option CLINs 2000, 2001, and 3000?

The Contractor has onsite FSO/ISSM/ISSO responsibility during CLIN 0001.

DRFP-038 Section J: SOW The SOW references S-102-2-4-2009e, ANSI/AIAA

Performance-Based Product Failure Mode, Effects and

Criticality Analysis (FMECA) Requirements, but we believe this is an error and should instead reference S-102-

1-4-2009e, ANSI/AIAA Performance-Based Failure

Reporting, Analysis & Corrective Action System

(FRACAS) Requirements. Does the MDA agree with this recommendation?

The SOW will be updated to the proper reference.

DRFP-053 Section J: SOW

3.4.9

The SOW has two sections numbered 3.4.9 – “Production and Manufacturing,” Lines 1798 – 1944, and “Supplier management / Field Surveillance Program,” Lines 1945 –

1959. Please revise the section numbering scheme.

Supplier Management / Field Surveillance Program will be correctly numbered.

DRFP-058 Section L: L-3.3, L-

3.4.3, L-3.4.3.1.2

Section L-3.4.3.1.2, Instructions for the Key Personnel

Section, require five (5) resumes to be provided, each up to 2 pages for a total of 10 pages. In addition, on line

1329, the Offeror is asked to “address the experience, educational background and record of past accomplishment of key personnel to be assigned to the

LRDR program. The Offeror shall describe its plan for handling key personnel turnover in the LRDR program during the period of contract performance.” It is not clear whether or not these 10 pages for the resumes count against the 10 page limit specified in Table 3.3A of section L-3.3.

Please confirm that the five (5) requested resumes are not included in the page limit of 10 pages for Tab 1B.

The resumes addressed under Section L-3.4.3.1.2 are to be provided as an attachment to Volume III. The last sentence under Section L-3.4.3 will be revised to read as follows:

"Only those attachments to Volume III that are addressed below (IMS, Key Personnel Resumes, Small Business

Subcontracting Plan and Small Business Participation &

Commitment Plan) will not count against the Volume III page limits."

DRFP-061 Section J: J-09

CSDR Plan

Would the Government consider providing a WBS

Dictionary to ensure a consistent mapping from all competitors.

The Offeror is responsible for providing Prime Mission

Product (PMP) WBS element definition as defined in

CDRL J-09 as part of their Basis of Estimate (BOE). MIL-

STD-881C may be referenced for non-PMP element categories and definitions.

DRFP-077 Section L: L3.4.3.2 The requirements of Management Sub-factor 2 (MS-2):

Program Management Approach must address significantly more requirements than other sections in the

Management Volume. Would the Government provide the

Offeror the flexibility to reallocate up to 5 pages among subsections while staying within the Volume total?

Page count restrictions are under review.

DRFP-090 Section J: J-01

SOW (Sec. 3.8 pg.

65)/Ref GFI -

OSM Overview pg

In order to properly construct, cost and scope the Models and Simulations, the description and interface documents for the OSM, OSI and ODI models are needed prior to final RFP release. Would the Government make the

Interface Description documents instructing how the delivered models should interface with the M&S system available to potential Offerors?

In lieu of the Interface Description Document, source-code will be provided as it becomes available. This will describe the interface between OSM-element to OSM-framework (execution engine). In addition, the Objective

Simulation Framework Interface Control Document will be provided. This describes the interface from OSM/OSI to the BMDS System-level framework.

The Government is considering removing ODI from the

Statement of Work.

DRFP-094 SN-LRDR-ES-

Requirement LES-513 of the Element Specification calls out a scan angle that is associated with the sensitivity requirement, but the scan direction is not defined.

Is this scan angle of requirement LES-513 intended to be a conical scan angle or is it intended to be only in Azimuth?

The scan angle referenced in the Element Specification is the combined angular offset of the main beam from array normal in both Azimuth and Elevation.

DRFP-096 SN-LRDR-ES-

To ensure that range resolution requirement of LES-519 is properly interpreted, some clarifications are necessary.

Would the Government please define range resolution required by LES-519? e.g. as the separation at which two non-fluctuating point scatters, with differing cross sections.

What probability of resolution is desired?

Range resolution is the minimum distance in the range direction at which two detectable scatters can be resolved.

Probability of resolution will not be in the ES.

DRFP-105 SN-LRDR-ES-

LES-292 refers to both "BIT" and "automated maintainer controller fault isolation subroutines". Since automated testing is normally part of BIT, it is not clear how the

Offeror should interpret automated maintainer controller fault isolation versus BIT.

Could the Government clarify the difference between

"BIT" and "automated maintainer controller fault isolation subroutines"?

The word 'automated' will be removed from the LRDR

Element Specification; an update will be provided with the final RFP. The intent is to enable local and remote

LRDR maintenance personnel to manually initiate diagnostic routines which are resident in the LRDR computing environment.

DRFP-119 BMDS IMTP, 7-9 Page 7-9 of the BMDS IMTP states that FTX-26 in FY20 is the only planned flight test using LRDR, but SOW sections 3.14.1.1, 3.14.1.2, 3.14.1.3, and 3.14.1.4 reference multiple flight tests. How many flight tests should Offerors price as part of CLIN 3000?

Offerors should only price one flight test, FTX-26, in

CLIN 3000 as it is the only flight test currently in the

IMTP with LRDR participation. The SOW will be updated for the final RFP.

DRFP-131 L-3.4.3.4 Section L-2.4.3.4 states "All large business Offerors shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 including information required in paragraphs (d) (1) through (d) (11) of that clause as an Attachment to Volume II. The Small Business

Subcontracting Plan must be determined to be acceptable by the PCO in order for the Offeror to be eligible for contract award. Additionally, all large business Offerors shall submit a Small Business Participation &

Commitment Plan as an Attachment to Volume II. Neither of these Attachments shall count against the Volume II page limits."

There appear to be a few incorrect references to

Attachments contained in Volume II (the Technical

Volume) described in the instructions for Volume III

(Management Volume). Would the Government please correct these references to state that the Small Business

Plans are Attachments to Volume III, Management

Volume, lines 1412, 1415, and 1416.

The language will be corrected to reference Volume III

(Management Volume).

DRFP-132 L-3.4.3, L-3.4.3.3 L-3.4.3 states ""If these details are contained in documents they may be provided as attachments to Volume III for convenience but shall count against the page limit for

Volume III. Each Offeror shall reference this documentation for each of the below areas as applicable.

Only those Attachments to Volume III that are specified below (IMS, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and

Small Business Participation & Commitment Plan) will not count against the Volume page limits"

L-3.4.3.3 states "The Offeror shall provide a preliminary schedule risk assessment of the IMS to include a level three IMS identifying primary, secondary and tertiary critical paths, interdependency and complexity flags, high risk milestones, first time events, confidence levels, and comparison of spans to historical analogies."

A typical summary level SRA analysis report is 5-10 pages in length, and would potentially be longer in order to address the detailed SRA requirements as stated in

Section L. Would the Government permit the Offerors to provide the SRA report along with the IMS as part of that page unlimited portion of the Management Volume?

Offerors will submit an SRA that will be subject to a page count limit defined in the final RFP. The SRA page count will not count toward Volume III total.

DRFP-134 01 - DRFP LRDR

J-01 SOW -

Paragraph 3.8.3.1

We interpret seven "LRDR strings" to mean seven LRDR signal/data processors, each requiring i/q data to be provided. These are delivered to the sites defined in a-f of the second paragraph. These seven signal/data processors are integrated with seven (of the eight) OSI-L server strings at the sites defined in a-e and g in the first paragraph. Is this the correct interpretation? Or do only a subset of these locations require i/q data?

"LRDR Strings" refers to the tactical Signal and Data

Processing Equipment (SDPE), which will be integrated with OSI-L servers.

Eight locations require I/Q data: The "LRDR deployment site" configuration will require an OSI-L server, which will provide I/Q data to the site's tactical Equipment.

Item d in the second paragraph, should refer to the "OSI developer site." The SOW will be corrected to reflect this.

DRFP-151 Section H‐43, page

Please modify the provision to confirm Offeror receives reasonable notification prior to any Government communication with subcontractors.

The Government has reviewed the standard MDA clause and concluded that it will remain in the RFP as written.

DRFP-152 Section H‐44, page

For pricing and planning purposes, please clarify how

CLIN 4000 would be exercised in part.

It is not envisioned that any additional contract line items or sub-line items will be established for Enhanced Data

Rights. Should the Government exercise Option CLIN

4000, it would be exercised in whole in accordance with clause H-44.

DRFP-153 Section I, 252.227‐7021, Recommend deletion. Limitations of the clause do not apply.

DFARS clause 252.227-7021 will be deleted.

DRFP-156 Section I, 52.227‐14, pages

55‐68

The FAR clause 52.227‐14 and all Alternates are superseded by DFARS 252.227‐7013, which is also in the contract. Because the DFARS supplement applies to DoD procurements, recommend removal of FAR 52.227‐14 and all Alternates.

FAR 52.227-14 (and the alternate versions incorporated into the draft RFP) will be deleted.

DRFP-157 Section I, 52.227‐3, page 46

Recommend removal of 52.227‐3. Given the non‐commercial developmental nature of this program, this clause should not apply.

The Government has reviewed the applicability of FAR clause 52.227-3 and has determined that this clause will remain in the RFP.

DRFP-159 Section J‐01

(SOW), 3.1.4.2

Would the government consider modifying the WBS to a more program phase‐centric approach to ensure compliance with MIL‐STD‐881C?

The WBS is IAW MIL-STD-881C.

DRFP-170 Section J‐01

(SOW), 3.8

Please provide specific validation and accreditation requirements and define sign‐off approach.

A HWIL/Digital Validation Plan will be provided with the final RFP.

DRFP-184 Section L‐1.8 Please confirm OCI protection applies to any algorithms, mathematical/statistical models, assumptions, executables, outputs to ballistic missile defense raid scenarios, source code (e.g. Excel Spreadsheet, Matlab scripts, C++), and other trade secret information required by Offerors to be submitted to the Government.

The language contained in paragraph L-1.8 is applicable to all content submitted by offerors in response to the

Government's solicitation.

DRFP-190 Section M‐4.1.1 Within the System Architecture and Design Sub‐factor, please provide the relative evaluation weighting of:

• System Architecture

• Hardware Architecture, Design and Development

• Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and Testability

(RAM‐T).

The importance of factor and sub-factors are defined under Section M-2.2 of the RFP. Areas within sub-factors are not assigned individual ratings and they are not weighted.