DRFP_R5_Q As_10.08.14.pdf

LRDR DRFP: HQ0147‐14‐R‐0002

Industry Questions and Answers Round 5

Number Sequence

RFP Section Questions/Comments Responses/Answers

DRFP‐024 Section L With respect to Tab 2A: Software Approach and Plans, we recommend that the LRDR draft Software Development Plan be a stand‐alone document that is excluded from the page limit allocations. Does the MDA agree with this recommendation?

The Government will update Section L to reflect that separate plans requested are stand‐alone documents excluded from the page count limitations for the various evaluation factors. However, such plans may still be subject to a separate page count.

DRFP‐047 Section J: FRD 4.3.1‐1 Paragraph 4.3.1‐1, Operations Control Room, of the LRDR Draft Facilities Requirements Document (July 2014) indicates that the primary control point for the LRDR will be the Remote Operations Center in Building 800. Please provide facility drawings and design data for that facility.

The LRDR will be remotely operated from a C2BMC node but not from Building 800.

FRD will be updated to remove reference to Radar control room in building 800.

DRFP‐055 Section J‐01 and Section M

Section M‐4.1.3.2 Manufacturing Readiness states that Offeror process and plans to achieve the target MRL of 6 is required by CDR.

J‐01 sates that production processes are at MRL 6 as a PDR entrance requirement. Please clarify which date the process and plans must be at MRL 6.

Process and plans must be at MRL 6 at PDR and Section M will be updated.

DRFP‐059 Section L: L‐3.4.2.3.2 Tab 3B: Manufacturing Readiness

Section L states on page 32 “A draft Manufacturing/Transition Plan (for any item identified that is currently below MRL 6) which shall address the process and plans to achieve MRL 6 by Critical Design Review (CDR).” On page 45 of SOW, Section 3.4.9 Production and Manufacturing it states MRL 6 as a PDR entrance criteria. This appears to be a discrepancy that MRL 6 is required as an entry criteria for PDR, but the draft Manufacturing/Transition Plan will address items below MRL 6 at CDR.

Will the Government update the CDR criteria in Section L page 32 to reflect the recommended text as follows: “A draft Manufacturing/Transition Plan which shall address the process and plans to achieve MRL 6 by Critical Design Review (CDR).”

Process and plans must be at MRL 6 at PDR and Sections L and M will be updated. The draft Manufacturing/Transition Plan will be removed from Sections L and M.

DRFP‐060 Section I: H‐29 Commercial Computer Software License

DFAR 227.7202 states that commercial computer software or commercial computer software documentation shall be acquired under the licenses customarily provided to the public. H‐29 requires that the Government be designated as a contingent licensee able to replace the Contractor as the primary license and permit the Government to transfer the license to another Contractor. Many commercial licenses do not permit such transfers and any potential added cost of either negotiating the licenses to adhere to the clause requirements or purchasing additional licenses on behalf of the Government may not outweigh the benefit.

Would the Government consider removing the license transfer requirement from clause H‐29?

The Government has considered Draft RFP Clause H‐29 and finds it to be consistent with DFARS 227.7202.

DRFP‐066 L‐3.4.3.2 Please confirm the draft RAM may be submitted as an attachment to Volume III and not included in page count.

The Government will update Section L to reflect that separate plans requested are stand‐alone documents excluded from the page count limitations for the various evaluation factors. However, such plans may still be subject to a separate page count.

DRFP‐067 L‐3.4.2.1.3 Please confirm the draft RAM‐T Program Plan may be submitted as an attachment to Volume II and not included in page count.

The Government will update Section L to reflect that separate plans requested are stand‐alone documents excluded from the page count

DRFP‐078 Section L: L‐3.4.3.2 The RAM is a mapping of our compliance to the MDA MAP (MDA Assurance Provisions) process document. Per Appendix A.2 of the MAP included in J‐02, the RAM is 15 pages long.

Would the Government consider including the draft Requirements Applicability Matrix (RAM) in the page unlimited portion of the Management Volume?

The Government will update Section L to reflect that the matrix requested is excluded from the page count limitations for the various evaluation factors. However, this matrix may still be subject to a separate page count.

DRFP‐083 DRFP Is LRDR open to Foreign Companies (with US corporate presence) or is it restricted to US companies only?

The LRDR program is limited to U.S. companies and U.S. citizens. Any LRDR Offeror shall be a company organized and existing under the laws of any of the fifty states, the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico, and be located in the United States or its territories.

Offerors shall be fully aware that companies under foreign ownership, control or interest influence (FOCI) will be excluded from contract award. A company is considered under FOCI whenever a foreign interest has the power, direct or indirect, whether or not exercised, and whether or not exercisable through the ownership of the U.S. company’s securities, by contractual arrangement or other means, to direct or decide matters affecting the management of operations of that company in a manner which may result in unauthorized access to classified information or may adversely affect the performance of classified contracts.

DRFP‐092 Section L L‐3.4.2.1.1 The first two sub‐section (a. and b.) of Section L‐3.4.2.1.1 both refer to satisfying "the requirements and the terms and conditions of the RFP." While the relevant requirements are clearly identified in Element Specification, the "terms and conditions of the RFP" are spread across a large number of documents.

The Offeror assumes the phrase "the terms and conditions of the RFP" refer to Sections A‐K of the Model Contract RFP. Is this correct?

The terms and conditions of the RFP refer to Sections A‐K.

DRFP‐101 SN‐LRDR‐ES‐0001 The target parameters for autonomous acquisition performance shown in Table 3‐6 are interdependent. For example, the velocity depends on the initial velocity and acceleration when the target enters the surveillance region. However, Table 3‐6 only specifies the max velocity and acceleration.

Would the Government define the dependencies between the target's velocity, acceleration, and burnout flight path angle? An alternative to providing the target parameters in Table 3‐6 would be to provide specific target trajectories, which would naturally include the interdependencies.

Target trajectories will be provided when available.

DRFP‐128 L‐3.4.2, L‐3.4.2.1.3 L‐3.4.2 states "If these details are contained in documents they may be provided as attachments to Volume II for convenience but shall count against the page limit for Volume II."

L‐3.4.2.1.3 states "The Offeror’s proposal shall include a draft RAM‐T Program Plan as defined in the SOW."

A typical Program Plan would be 50‐100 pages; an LRDR RAM‐T plan that meets the requirements of the LRDR SOW would likely be that long and would certainly exceed the page count allocated to the TAB‐ 1C RAM‐T Sub‐Section. Would the Government create a page unlimited portion of the Technical Volume for Attachments, as already established for the Management Volume, and allow the Offerors to provide the RAM‐T program plan as part of that page unlimited portion of the Technical Volume?

The Government will update Section L to reflect that separate plans requested are stand‐alone documents excluded from the page count limitations for the various evaluation factors. However, such plans may still be subject to a separate page count.

DRFP‐129 L‐3.4.2, L‐3.4.2.2.1 L‐3.4.2 states "If these details are contained in documents they may be provided as attachments to Volume II for convenience but shall count against the page limit for Volume II."

L‐3.4.2.2.1 states "The Offeror shall provide a draft Software Development Plan (SDP) as described in the SOW. "

A typical Software Development Plan would be 100‐200 pages; an LRDR Software Development Plan that meets the requirements of the LRDR SOW as well as the MAP would likely be that long and would certainly exceed the page count allocated to the TAB‐2A, Software Approach and Plans Sub‐Section. Would the Government create a page unlimited portion of the Technical Volume for Attachments, as already established for the Management Volume, and allow the Offerors to provide the Software Development Plan as part of that page unlimited portion of the Technical Volume?

The Government will update Section L to reflect that separate plans requested are stand‐alone documents excluded from the page count

DRFP‐130 L‐3.4.2, L‐3.4.2.3.2 L‐3.4.2 states "If these details are contained in documents they may be provided as attachments to Volume II for convenience but shall count against the page limit for Volume II."

L‐3.4.2.3.2 states "For those critical technologies not demonstrated to be at least a TRL of 6, the Offeror shall address how maturity will evolve to at least TRL 6 prior to System CDR."

A typical Program Plan would be 100 pages; an LRDR Manufacturing Transition Plan that meets the requirements of Section L would likely be that long and would certainly exceed the page count allocated to the TAB‐3B MRL Sub‐Section. Would the Government create a page unlimited portion of the Technical Volume for Attachments, as already established for the Management Volume, and allow the Offerors to provide the Manufacturing Transition Plan as part of that page unlimited portion of the Technical Volume?

The Government will update Section L to reflect that separate plans requested are stand‐alone documents excluded from the page count

DRFP‐133 SOW, section 3.4.9, 3.4.10, and 3.4.11

Section 3.4.9 (line 1798) of the SOW is titled Production and Manufacturing. The following major section, "Supplier Management / Field Surveillance Program" is also numbered Section 3.4.9 (line 1945). This duplication of numbering then affects subsequent sections 3.4.10 "Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortage" (line 1961) and "Out‐of‐Production Mitigation" (line 1967).

For the purposes of clear traceability from the Offerors response to the Government SOW, would the Government update the section numbering in the affected sections to eliminate the duplicate use of section number 3.4.9?

Yes, the error will be corrected in the Final RFP.

DRFP‐136 DRFP Are the discrimination and other performance requirements sufficient to address the evolving threat?

The Government will take the suggestion under consideration.

DRFP‐138 DRFP Will the Government provide the C2BMC to GMD/GFC Interface Document, including the classified appendices?

No, LRDR is only required to communicate with C2BMC.

DRFP‐139 ES System Spec LES‐

198, LES‐200

The LRDR shall generate an encryption table for in‐flight missile communication encryption and decryption using the Advanced Encryption Standard algorithm.

Please clarify the term "generate" in the context of this requirement.

Does MDA want LRDR to accept keys or seeds for key generation from GMD through C2BMC or be the originator of keys?

ES Section 3.2.11 is under review and any update will be provided with the Final RFP.

DRFP‐141 SN‐LRDR‐ES‐0001 and Section M

The BMD System LRDR Element Specification defines the use of the term "will" as: "Will" denotes a declaration of purpose or denotes an assertion, usually regarding usage of the system; "will" is used when referring to systems other than LRDR, for capabilities expected in the future, or for statements which are not allocated to LRDR.

Section M‐4.1. of Section M of the Draft RFP addresses how the Offerors compliance to the "requirements" will be evaluated, but it does not specifically call out how the "wills" of the Element Specification are to be evaluated.

There are many uses of "will" throughout the Element Specification (3.2.2.6, 3.3.2.8, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.2.9, et al.) These appear to be outright requirements on LRDR, rather than a declaration of purpose, an assertion, reference to other systems, or future requirements.

The Element Specification identifies four requirements as "(future)":

LES‐473, LES‐474, LES‐521, and LES‐224, and all of these requirements have a shall associated with them.

Because the Contractor is required to trace requirements from the solicitation, a review of the "wills" and "shalls" would be helpful in determining the Government's intent.

The Government will take the suggestion under consideration.

DRFP‐143 Section H‐08, page 30 DFARS 252.204‐7000 governs data distribution and is represented in Section I. To avoid inconsistencies with DFARS, NISPOM 1‐107, Executive Order 12829, and 18 USC 1905, Offeror recommends deletion of H‐08 acknowledging above DFARS clause is already included in Section I.

The Government has considered DRFP Clause H‐08 and finds it to be consistent with subject references.

DRFP‐144 Section H‐28, page 36 Offeror understands DFARS 252.204‐7000 governs distribution of information, including program technical data, and that CDRLs include specific distribution statement requirements. To avoid inconsistencies with DFARS, NISPOM 1‐107, Executive Order 12829, and 18 USC 1905, Offeror recommends deletion of H‐28 acknowledging above DFARS clause is already included in Section I.

The Government has considered Draft RFP Clause H‐28 and finds it to be consistent with subject references.

DRFP‐145 Section H‐29(a), page

The default commercial software license provided in FAR 52.227‐19, which commercial industry is familiar with, is different from H‐29(a).

H‐29(a) includes requirements exceeding FAR 52.227‐19 (e.g., USG as Contingent Licensee, replace contractor as primary licensee, terms of license must satisfy user needs, software to accomplish ultimate objectives), which commercial and open‐source software providers may object to. Would the Government consider replacing H‐29(a) in favor of FAR 52.227‐19?

The Government has considered Draft RFP Clause H‐29 and finds it to be consistent with the applicable DFARS provisions that govern this particular subject matter.

DRFP‐146 Section H‐33, page 40 Freedom of Information Act Exemption 4 includes "trade secrets and commercial or financial information." Offeror requests exclusion of commercial or financial information from the disclosure requirement in H‐33(b).

The Government has reviewed the standard MDA H‐33 clause and has determined it will remain unchanged.

DRFP‐147 Section H‐35, page 40 FAR 52.227‐19 establishes license requirements for commercial software (including open source). For efficiency and cost savings for providers, Offeror recommends replacing H‐35 with the provisions of FAR 52.227‐19 with optional reference to FAR 27.405‐3.

The Government has considered Draft RFP Clause H‐35 and finds it to be consistent with the applicable DFARS provisions that govern this particular subject matter.

DRFP‐148 Section H‐36, page 41 H‐36 appears to introduce confusion between the requirements stated in the clause versus those provisions covered in DFARS 252.227‐7013, 7014 and 7017. Offeror recommends deletion of H‐36 to avoid confusion with the DFARs provisions, as Offeror is unclear as to what additional requirements are imposed by H‐36.

The Government has considered the subject references and finds their use to be consistent with applicable regulations and statutes.

DRFP‐149 Section H‐37(a), page

Section M‐4.3 provides means by which Government evaluates Offeror's intellectual property and data rights assertions (e.g., limited rights, restricted rights). However, H‐37(a) precludes use of limited rights technical data or restricted rights software without PCO approval. Please clarify. In light of 10 USC 2320, recommend the Government consider removing H‐37(a).

The Government has considered the subject references and finds their use to be consistent with applicable regulations and statutes.

DRFP‐150 Section H‐37(b), page

It is not clear within the scope of this contract how this provision governs IR&D projects and assets. Recommend removal of H‐37(b).

The Government has considered the use and application of Draft RFP clause H‐37 and finds it appropriate to address the process for requesting the use of Government assets in IR&D projects.

DRFP‐158 Section J‐01 (SOW), 3.1.3.3

For pricing and planning, please define anticipated number of annual TIMs.

For proposal development, assume there will be approximately 52 TIMs held per year (an average of 1 per week) involving the IPTs listed in section 3.1.3.1 of the SOW.

DRFP‐160 Section J‐01 (SOW), 3.1.6.1

Please confirm the Classified IDE designated approval authority is

DSS.

The Classified IDE designated approval authority is the cognizant security agency for the Offeror's CAGE code.

DRFP‐165 Section J‐01 (SOW), 3.14.1.1

Please confirm tests are four phases: planning, walk‐up, test, and report.

BMDS Tests will follow the four‐phase Ground and Flight Test CONOPS. These are described in the SOW as Planning, Integration, Execution, and Analysis.

DRFP‐166 Section J‐01 (SOW), 3.4.1.11, Line 1231

Please define the frequency of Mission Focused Audits and corrective action follow‐up visits.

SOW will be updated to address this concern.

DRFP‐167 Section J‐01 (SOW), 3.4.11

Please confirm mitigation efforts are confined to in‐scope material requirements and obsolescence "execute" efforts terminate with contract end.

Contractor effort will occur within the PoP of the contract.

DRFP‐168 Section J‐01 (SOW), 3.4.9.4, Line 1843

Please define the frequency for Product/Process Verification activity. SOW will be updated to address this concern.

DRFP‐169 Section J‐01 (SOW), 3.7.1.2

Is it the Government's intention to acquire both Analog and Digital target injection?

For BMDS ground testing the OSM/OSI subsystems will provide digital target injection as per SOW section 3.8.

Digital target injection will be required for the LRDR built in test circuitry. The Government will determine by the Final RFP whether to include Analog target injection in the built in test circuitry.

DRFP‐188 Section L‐3.4.2.3.1 Please identify specific Critical Technologies for this program. Core Critical Technologies will be identified within the Final RFP.

Offerors system specific critical technologies shall be identified by Offeror within their proposal.

DRFP‐189 Section M‐3.2 Please clarify the distinctions among "exceptional," "thorough," and "adequate" approaches as stated in Table M‐3‐1 relative to the outstanding, good, and acceptable rating scale.

The evaluation scheme is currently under review. The final RFP will contain an evaluation approach that is consistent with Department of Defense procedures.

DRFP‐192 Section M‐7.0 Please describe how the "assessment of affordability" is conducted;

will the Government provide Offerors an available budget by year to establish the "affordable" baseline?

Affordability is important to the Government and we are considering various approaches to assess affordability.