DRFP_R6_Q As_10.15.14.pdf

LRDR DRFP: HQ0147‐14‐R‐0002

Industry Questions and Answers Round 6

Number Sequence

RFP Section Questions/Comments Responses/Answers

DRFP‐014 Section L: L‐3.4.6 Throughout cost/price volume instructions, the terms Offeror, major subcontractor and minor sub‐contractor are used. The term Offeror in the cost/price volume instructions is defined as and includes any of the following:

a. The Prime Offeror

b. Proposed Major Subcontractors The term Major Subcontractor is defined as and includes any of the following:

a. Proposed subcontractors that contribute $12.5 million or more of the effort as proposed by the Prime Offeror for all CLINs combined.

b. Intra‐company work transfers that contribute $12.5 million or more of the effort as proposed by the Prime Offeror for all CLINs combined.

Major Subcontractors are defined as subcontractors that exceed $12.5M as proposed by the Prime Offeror for all CLINs combined.

This threshold could result in hardware suppliers exceeding the threshold who are unable to provide cost volume data such as the Electronic Pricing Workbook and BOEs.

The contractor defines subcontractor as companies who perform Purchase Service related activity such as software development, leased labor etc.

The contractor defines suppliers as companies who provide hardware material.

Would the Government consider revising the threshold for major subcontractors to $50M and/or provide language in the RFP to distinguish between a subcontractor versus a supplier, eliminating the requirement for suppliers that exceed the major subcontractor threshold.

The $12.5M threshold established to define Major Subcontractors has been reviewed and remains unchanged.

"Suppliers" will be further defined in the RFP to identify those entities that provide material items or parts to an offeror under a firm fixed price agreement. The RFP will also address additional proposal requirements including a requirement that offerors provide evidence of the firm fixed price agreements with suppliers. Offerors must also include prices from suppliers in the Excel Pricing Workbook formats.

DRFP‐019 Section G Have the support contractors referred to in Clause G‐13, "Notice of the Government's Use of Outside Contractors to Review Submitted Invoices, Payment Requests and DD250's", executed the standard NDA prescribed by DFARS 227.7103‐7? If not, do the NDA’s referred to in G‐13 provide for third‐party beneficiary rights in the event of a breach?

Clause G‐13 addresses the utilization of support contractors to assist the Government in reviewing and reconciling invoices, payment records, the Government's financial and budgetary records, and facilitating the timely payment of submitted invoices. Clause G‐13 only addresses information associated with this support, not technical data and computer software delivered to the Government addressed under DFARS 227.7103‐7.

DRFP‐022 Section I Section I contains both DFARS 252.227‐7008 (MAR 2013) and DFARS 252.227‐7009 (JUN 2013). We recommend deletion of the ‐7008 variant, based on the inclusion of the ‐7009 clause. Does the MDA agree with this recommendation?

The Government presumes the question pertains to the use of DFARS clauses 252.225‐7008 (MAR 2013) and 252.225‐7009 (JUN 2013). The Government has reviewed and determined that both clauses shall remain in the RFP.

DRFP‐025 Section L: L‐3.4.6.6 Section 3.4.6.6 states that the Section J GFP list, Attachment J‐02C, has been provided. Although Attachments J‐02A and J‐02B were received with the Offerors' Library documentation, we did not locate Attachment J‐02C. Please provide this Attachment or clarify.

J‐02C will be provided with the Final RFP.

DRFP‐039 Section J: J‐07 FRD, 9/8 Process Air

Is "process air" low pressure air, dry air, or both, and is there a commercial or military standard to describe this air? Both low pressure air and dry air preferred. An appropriate dry air specification is MIL‐STD‐1399 102A. We recommend the low pressure air use the same pressures and cleanliness as defined by MIL‐

STD‐1399 102A.

The intent is to distribute high pressure air throughout the maintenance shops as required within the MCF. The requirement for the high pressure air will need to be documented in the MILCON FRD, based on the Radar Prime demand for process air. If there is a specific low pressure, dry air requirement for the radar within the LES, it would not be included in the MILCON and is a Radar Prime responsibility.

DRFP‐040 Section J: J‐07 FRD, 9/8 Process Air

Does the MDA define "process air" as low pressure air, dry air, or both? Also, does a commercial or military standard describe this type of air? We recommend that the low pressure air use the same pressures and cleanliness as defined by MIL‐STD‐1399 102A.

The intent is to distribute high pressure air throughout the maintenance shops as required within the MCF. The requirement for the high pressure air will need to be documented in the MILCON FRD, based on the Radar Prime demand for process air. If there is a specific low pressure, dry air requirement for the radar within the LES, it would not be included in the MILCON and is a Radar Prime responsibility.

DRFP‐041 Section J: J‐07 FRD,

4.8.5 Main Loads

A power requirement is placed upon the facility to provide 21.7 MW of 4,160 VAC power, and a maximum load of 15,600 kW. This requirement raises three questions:

1. Is this maximum load a power requirement for the LRDR system?

2. Is this power intended for both faces operating at the objective sensitivity?

3. Is this intended to provide power to both LRDR faces doing simultaneous operations?

The power will be available at any voltage of 138.8KVA or less. The maximum load for the radar system (not including the facility) will be refined in the final RFP.

The maximum load will be to power the face configuration in the RFP (one face or two, operating simultaneously).

DRFP‐043 Section J: J‐07 FRD Section 9.6 of the FRD requires commonality and integration of Radar Prime LES controls and Facility Contractor (FC) Mission Control Facility (MCF) systems. We assume that this requirement only applies to Facilities subsystems (HVAC, Plumbing, Fire Suppression/Detection, etc.) and not to all Radar subsystems. Please explain the degree of commonality required.

The Government is focused on the building management controls.

During design there may be opportunities for the MILCON to pick up control points from the radar cooling and heating systems that will be of value.

The radar prime design must be compatible with the MILCON equipment.

DRFP‐048 Section J: CDRLs Exhibit A1

CDRL A046 states that a "First submission (draft)" of the Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) Program Plan is "due with proposal."

Would the Government accept CDRL A046 as an attachment to the Technical Volume?

The Government will change the title for the request from "draft RAM‐T Program Plan" to "RAM‐T Program Plan Summary" and limit the page count to 50. The CDRL (Blocks 12,13) that requests the first submission in the proposal will be removed.

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‐052 Section J: J‐07 FRD 6.7 The spec states, "The Radar Prime will not pass extreme seismic isolation reactions into the foundation design." What constitutes an "extreme" reaction? Is seismic isolation required, recommended, or at the discretion of the LES contractor?

The seismic requirements for the LES equipment are to be addressed by the Radar Prime. The MILCON FRD will be revised to remove the term "extreme" and state that the foundation interface will have a requirement for a frequency and response spectrum, based on a ground motion study. That interface will be used to define the requirement for the Radar Prime to design the LES structure. The Government will provide a standard foundation design (without isolation). If required, isolation would be provided by the Radar Prime.

DRFP‐062 Section L: L‐3.4.1.2 POC List

Section L instructions request that POC information be provide for both the prime Offeror and each teammate/subcontractor though limits the page count to only two pages. The listing of subcontractor POC information along with the Prime Offeror is expected to exceed two pages.

Would the Government consider limiting the teammate/subcontractor to key teammates and key subcontractors with contract values greater than $50M?

The 2 page limitation established for the Point of Contact (POC) List in the Executive Summary applies to the prime Offeror and each Major Subcontractor. There is no total page limit for the POC list.

The final RFP will be revised to reflect that the POC List must only be provided for the prime Offeror and each Major subcontractor (as defined in L‐3.4.6).

DRFP‐063 Section F: CLIN 0011 The current PoP stated for CLIN 0011 (Data in Support of Contract) only indicates a 31‐MAR‐2023 date. It is expected that CDRLs will be delivered throughout the life of the contract, therefore, CLIN PoP should be adjusted to reflect a PoP of 01‐JUN‐2015 to 31‐MAR‐2023.

Please adjust the period of performance for CLIN 0011 (Data in Support of Contract) to reflect the entire contract PoP.

Section F will be revised to reflect the appropriate period of performance and delivery dates.

DRFP‐071 SOW 3.1.8.1 Please confirm classified systems within Offeror facilities will be approved by DSS in accordance with NISPOM.

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

DRFP‐072 J‐11A Base Support Requirements List ‐ Shemya ‐ 2.19

Are the services described provided at no cost to the Contractor? If the answer is "no" what are the costs and how are they administered? Should costs for establishing and maintaining a mancamp be included in the Contractor's Proposal?

The Government will indicate cost and no cost items in the BSRL within the Final RFP.

DRFP‐073 J‐11B Base Support Requirements List ‐ Clear ‐ 2.19

Are the services described provided at no cost to the Contractor? If the answer is "no" what are the costs and how are they administered? Should costs for establishing and maintaining a mancamp be included in the Contractor's Proposal?

The Government will indicate cost and no cost items in the BSRL within the Final RFP.

DRFP‐079 Section L: L‐3.4.3.4 Section L‐3.4.3.4 appears to only address the required content of the 2 documents, which are both excluded from the page count. The required content of Tab 4, Subfactor MS‐4 within the allocated 10 pages appears to be a summary of the content of these plans.

Both the Small Business Subcontracting Plan and the Small Business Participation & Commitment Plan are excluded from the page count for Volume III. Can the Government confirm that the content that should be addressed is the summary of these plans?

Section L will be revised to clarify that offerors shall only submit the Small Business Subcontracting Plan and the Small Business Participation & Commitment Plan under Tab 4 to address the Small Business Participation and Commitment Sub‐factor. There are no page limits for these documents. The 10 page limit shown in Table 3.3A of the draft RFP will be removed.

DRFP‐091 Section J: SOW 3.1.7.2 Lines 386‐390

The SOW Section 3.1.7.2 mentions following the guides for TEMPEST, though the DD254 has Not checked for TEMPEST. Would the Government change the SOW to reflect the DD254 requirement?

The DD Form 254 provides to the contractor the security requirements and the classification guidance that is necessary for their facilities to perform on a classified contract. In the alternative, the TEMPEST language contained in the SOW is a contractual requirement pertaining to the LRDR itself. Therefore, the DD254 is correct i.e. the TEMPEST block has not been checked.

DRFP‐097 SN‐LRDR‐ES‐0001 Table A‐6 of the Element Specification provides a number of critical countermeasure parameters, but is missing one parameter.

Can the Government also provide reflectivity in Table A‐6?

The Government has considered the recommendation and Table A‐6 will not be updated with the final RFP.

DRFP‐099 SN‐LRDR‐ES‐0001

Section 3.2.15

Section 3.2.15 defines the RMA requirements. Requirement LES‐2 defines threshold sensitivity, and requirement LES‐515 defines future sensitivity.

Section 3.2.15 defines the RMA requirements. Can we assume that the RMA requirements of Section 3.2.1.5 are to be met when the system is sized to meet the reduced, threshold, future sensitivity requirements? Would the Government add such a clarification to section 3.2.15?

LRDR system architecture and design will support the RMA (RAM‐T) requirement defined in the LRDR Element Specification. Final RMA (RAM‐T) specification will apply to the LRDR configuration at time of Radar Acceptance Testing.

DRFP‐102 SN‐LRDR‐ES‐0001 Note 5 in Table 3‐9, defines conditions for sideflash, but it does not define the duration of time those conditions must be present in order for a sideflash condition to occur.

Would the Government update Note 5 of Table 3‐9 to include a duration over which the stated conditions must occur, in order for a sideflash condition to occur?

Reference the rates in Tables A‐2 and A‐4 to derive the duration period.

DRFP‐107 SN‐LRDR‐ES‐0001

Section 3.2.2.10

Section 3.2.2.10 has two requirements for performance in certain environments. However, those environments are not defined or referred to specifically by these requirements. One environment is described in Table A‐6. The other environment is described in Table A‐6, but also in section 3.2.13.4.

Would the Government update the two requirements in Section

3.2.2.10 with definitions or references for the two environments?

The power listed in Table A‐6 is not consistent with the power listed in Table 3‐12.

Environments are bounded by Table A‐6. Power listed in Table 3‐12 is specific to that CM type.

DRFP‐108 SN‐LRDR‐ES‐0001 Table 3‐12 provides threat parameters, but does not provide other key parameters needed for design and analysis.

Would the Government provide separation rate, deployment rate, and number of threats relevant to Table 3‐12?

Reference Note 2 in Table A‐6.

DRFP‐109 FRD (RFP Section J‐07) Section 4.8.5 provides requirements on power factor, surge current, etc. but there is not requirement for power ramp loading (Watts/sec).

Would the Government provide a requirement in Section 4.8.5 for power ramp load?

The Government will consider adding this requirement.

DRFP‐110 FRD (RFP Section J‐07) Two different requirements for Power Factor are provided, one in Table 4.12.4‐1 and a "nominal" one in Section 4.8.6.

Would the Government confirm that the Power Factor in Table 4.12.4‐ 1 is correct and eliminate the "nominal" Power Factor in Section 4.8.6?

The Final RFP will be updated to make appropriate corrections.

DRFP‐111 FRD (RFP Section J‐07) The text in Section 4.8.6 makes reference to sections 4.13.4.5.1.2 thru 4.13.4.5.1.4. However these sections do not exist. It is likely that the intended references are the paragraphs immediately following this text, but those paragraphs are not numbered

The Final RFP will be updated to make appropriate corrections.

DRFP‐113 SN‐LRDR‐ES‐0001 The terms "mission critical" is used as a adjective for "failures", "functions", "LRUs", "computer resources", "equipment", and "faults" in numerous instances throughout the Element Specification.

However, there is no definition provided for any of these. It is important that these terms are defined clearly, so that there is no misinterpretation. This is especially true for quantitative requirements, such as LES 290, LES‐291, and LES‐427.

Traditionally, these definitions are based on a meeting some other requirement(s); for example, a "mission critical failure" could be any failure or group of failures that cause the system performance to degrade below the minimum sensitivity and accuracy requirements.

Would the Government provide definitions for the term "mission critical" in requirements LES‐290, LES‐291 and LES‐427?

The ES will update the use of mission critical terminology with the Final RFP.

DRFP‐114 SN‐LRDR‐ES‐0001 Requirement LES‐149 specifies that LRDR shall perform conventional discrimination. However, a definition of conventional discrimination is not provided.

With regard to requirement LES‐149, would the Government provide a formal definition of "conventional discrimination", i.e., is the minimum feature set to support this consistent with the features identified in Table 3‐10 & LES‐179?

The definition will be updated in the Final RFP. Offeror can also reference the BMD System Specification.

DRFP‐115 Model Contract Section F 52.211‐11

Would the Government clarify the following items related to Liquidated Damages clause 52.211‐11?

1. confirm that Liquidated Damages only applies to CLIN 0001

2. confirm the "time specified in the contract" under clause 52.211‐ 11(a) refers to the CLIN 0001 DD250

3. specify the dollar amount to be inserted into 52.211‐11(a)

4. specify the maximum dollar amount (cap) associated

5. insert the allowance of a cure period

The Government is in the process of determining the liquidated damages rate and applicability. Maximum probable damage will be considered as set forth in the FAR.

DRFP‐116 FRD Would the Government provide site survey information pertaining to the facilities located at Eareckson Air Station and Clear Air Force Station, Alaska?

The FRD will contain additional site and facility drawings in the Final

RFP.

DRFP‐117 L‐3.4.7.2 Line 2083 The prime Offeror must complete this Excel spreadsheet (see Exhibit L‐2). This spreadsheet must provide a clear depiction of all discreetly proposed labor resources regardless of whether these resources are provided by the Prime or any tier of subcontractor.

Correct. All labor resources need to be shown. This is to enable the evaluators to verify that the resources proposed are realistic, reasonable and consistent with the Offeror's technical and management approach.

DRFP‐118 J‐07 FRD, 4.7.1 Supply Characteristics

Figure M‐102, Conceptual Ground Water Cooling System Diagram, is referenced but not provided. This diagram should clarify the applicability of groundwater, chilled water, and waste water.

Without it, it is unclear how the cooling system is laid out. Will this diagram be provided in the next update to the FRD?

A schematic of the cooling system will be included in the FRD with the Final RFP.

DRFP‐123 SOW 3.5.10 LRDR SOW 3.5.10 states “The contractor shall provide a Logistics Demonstration plan (CDRL A076) that will describe how all Logistics elements including RAM‐T components are designed into the system based on the prescribed KPPs. Logistics Demonstrations (LD) will be conducted in conjunction with other planned reviews such as PDR, CDR, PRR, and DD250. The LDs will be conducted by the Government using an independent logistics assessment checklist derived from the United States Air Force (USAF) ILA handbook sections D‐5 through D‐ 14 and D‐16, to confirm that sufficient resources, planning and tasks are in place for product support and sustainment of the LRDR.

Is it the Government’s intent to conduct reviews of the LD outline, in conjunction with other planned reviews? This would be consistent with SOW paragraph 3.4.4.19 Maintainability and Testability Demonstration (emphasis added). The following language is recommended.

The contractor shall perform a maintainability and testability demonstration prior to DD‐250. This demonstration shall verify that the LRDR meets all maintainability and testability requirements identified in the LRDR element specification. The contractor shall include maintainability and testability demonstration requirements in the logistics demonstration plan. The contractor shall include maintainability and testability results in the logistics demonstration report. A demonstration outline shall be presented during the PDRs and CDRs.

The Government will consider the recommendation.

DRFP‐124 FRD Section 3.6.1 FRD Section 3.6 applies to site mechanical design and indicates an HVAC N+1 design configuration. Subsections details HVAC subsystems for pressurization, exhaust, and electronic filtration without clarification on HVAC N+1 requirement.

Would the government confirm HVAC N+1 requirement does not include all subsystems including: a) pressurization, b) exhaust, and c) electronic filtration.

The N+1 requirement is required for specific mission critical items in which failure of a single piece of equipment could degrade LRDR capability below acceptable limits. Considering the RAM‐T for the overall mission is necessary to identify the critical elements of the system where redundancy is required. In general subsystems such as those in your question would not require redundancy of N+1

DRFP‐125 FRD Section 5.1 In FRD Section 5.1, the primary power source is described as coming from Golden Valley Electric Association, which is only available at Clear AFB. The Eareckson Air Station power system does not have excess capacity system to provide power for this project.

Will the Prime Contractor be responsible to construct a Power System at Shemya to provide primary and backup power?

The Government will provide the appropriate generator plant facilities for the LRDR.

DRFP‐126 FRD Section 6.7 FRD Section 6.7 states that the “Radar Prime will not pass extreme seismic isolation reactions into the foundation design.”

How does the government define extreme seismic isolation?

The seismic requirements for the LES equipment are to be addressed by the Radar Prime. The MILCON FRD will be revised to remove the term "extreme" and state that the foundation interface will have a requirement for a frequency and response spectrum, based on a ground motion study. That interface will be used to define the requirement for the Radar Prime to design the LES structure. The Government will provide a standard foundation design (without isolation). If required, isolation would be provided by the Radar Prime.

DRFP‐127 SN‐LRDR‐ES‐0001,

Table A‐6

Table A‐6 defines a subset of the CM environments. However, there appears to be a inconsistencies between the min and max number of all CM types versus the min and max numbers of individual CM types. Also, not all individual CM types have a min and max number identified.

Would the Government reconcile the inconsistencies in the min and max CM types listed in Table A‐6?

The Government will consider the recommendation. The LRDR ES is being updated with the Final RFP.

DRFP‐135 DRFP Will there be discrimination performance requirements other than just RV, non‐RV?

The Government will consider the recommendation. The LRDR ES is being updated with the Final RFP.

DRFP‐137 MAP (J‐02) MDA‐QS‐001‐MAP Rev B MDA Assurance Provisions

Has the Government determined if LRDR is classified as a safety critical system?

The LRDR is not classified as a safety critical system as a whole. Safety critical is defined and evaluated per MAP Rev B.

DRFP‐140 Requirement: LES‐276 Seismic vibration. What is the time period for this requirement? The Element Spec will be revised to reflect the shock and vibration requirements which includes time periods.

DRFP‐142 Section B, CLIN 4000, CLIN 4000, Enhanced Data Rights ‐ Neither Section L or the J‐01 (SOW), mention CLIN 4000 or define Enhanced Data Rights.

Recommend Government provide Section L content describing the Government's request for what Offerors are to propose. In the recommended Section L content, please clarify how Offerors shall respond if they are unable or unwilling to provide GPR.

As stated in Section L it is the Government's goal that technical data, computer software and computer software documentation be delivered with a minimum of Government Purpose rights as defined by the applicable DFARS clauses. It is also the Government's desire to obtain a license for the commercial technical data, computer software and computer software documentation to be delivered that would grant the Government the equivalent of Government Purpose rights. The Government will evaluate the adverse impact (risk) on the Government’s ability to use, modify, release, or disclose such technical data, computer software, or computer software documentation in the event that such data will be delivered with less than Government Purpose rights. It is the Government's intent to add a provision in the resulting contract addressing CLIN 4000. The Final RFP will be written accordingly.

DRFP‐154 Section I, 252.227‐7024, page 48

Per DFARS 227.7107‐3, DFARS 252.227‐7024 is limited to architect‐engineer contracts and construction work. Recommend deletion.

DFARS clause 252.227‐7024 will remain.

DRFP‐155 Section I, 52.227‐1, Both 52.227‐1 and 52.227‐1 Alt 1 are included. Recommend removal of 52.227‐1.

FAR clause 52.227‐1 and 52.227‐1 Alt 1 will remain.

DRFP‐161 Section J‐01 (SOW), 3.1.8.1

Please verify that 1) this accreditation requirement applies only to systems connected to the prime mission equipment, and 2) not to systems which were pre‐existing but extended during the period of performance.

Cybersecurity requirements in section 3.1.8 extend to any mission or non‐mission systems/networks developed under this contract that will be accredited by Missile Defense Agency. Additionally, 3.1.8.2 further defines information protection requirements from DFARS clause 252.204‐7012 and MDA policy memo 68 for contractor‐owned and operated systems/networks used in support of the LRDR program (whether pre‐existing or new).

DRFP‐162 Section J‐01 (SOW), 3.1.8.5

Please confirm this requirement is scheduled information assurance / cybersecurity scanning for purpose of maintaining system or network accreditation.

The vulnerability scans are conducted in support of achieving and maintaining system accreditation.

DRFP‐163 Section J‐01 (SOW), 3.1.8.6

Please confirm patches install quarterly and installation period is excluded from Ao calculation.

Quarterly installation of patches are required as defined in para.

3.1.8.6 ‐ Vulnerability Resolution.

If patching operations result in radar downtime, that time would impact Ao unless occurring during normally scheduled and previously approved maintenance windows that have been excluded from the Ao calculations.

DRFP‐164 Section J‐01 (SOW), 3.1.8.7

Please confirm this requirement is limited to only the prime mission equipment.

HBSS requirements extend to all systems/networks developed under this contract, whether prime mission equipment or supporting equipment, that will be accredited by Missile Defense Agency.

DRFP‐171 Section J‐02A (GFI), Item 17 ‐ DODI

8510.01 RMF for DOD

IT

Please confirm that the vulnerability assessments identified in J‐01 (SOW), 3.1.8.5 are for the purpose of achieving and maintaining systems accreditation as conducted currently on other similar MDA programs.

The vulnerability scans are conducted in support of achieving and maintaining system accreditation.

DRFP‐172 Section J‐07 (FRD), page 19 (Table 4.2.2‐1)

Tables 4.2.2‐1 and 4.2.2‐2 seem in conflict with respect to ambient temperatures.

The Final RFP will be updated to make appropriate corrections.

DRFP‐173 Section J‐07 (FRD), page 13 (3.1.4.2)

Please confirm spares are for a 1‐year period of normal operation. This one year requirement applies only to the facilities items. Radar spares are identified under other areas of the SOW.

DRFP‐174 Section J‐07 (FRD), page 3 (1.4.2)

Please confirm that the Radar Prime's role in the process will be limited to providing information on radar system characteristics to the agencies responsible for the performance of the environmental permitting process.

The assumption is correct regarding all environmental permitting. If offeror needs additional permits (local dig permits, locates, etc.)

offeror will be responsible to acquire those.

DRFP‐175 Section J‐07 (FRD), page 49 (4.8.1)

Please confirm that the two separate incoming power lines are fully capable (i.e. each capable of carrying the full demand load) and are fully redundant.

Each feed will be sized to carry the full load of the radar and fully redundant. They are to be provided into the MCF electrical room by the MILCON project. There will be an interface point where the radar Prime will connect and install feeds into the LES.

DRFP‐176 Section J‐07 (FRD), page 64 (6.4)

Please describe the review and approval process of the LES design. The reference of paragraph 6.4 is for Fire protection and detection.

As with the rest of the LES shelter design, there are to be design review hold points at 35%, 65% and 95% with a final back check of the documents.

DRFP‐177 Section J‐12 (Incentive Plan), Section 2.3, CPO #3, Power Consumption

How, for what duration(s), and under what circumstances is prime power consumption measured during Acceptance Testing? Is there to be a separate test procedure for prime power measurement?

Section L‐3.4.2.1.2 and the Incentive plan indicate the duration and circumstances. Power will be measured onsite. Exact test procedure shall be part of the Acceptance Test Plan.

DRFP‐178 Section J‐12 (Incentive Plan), Section 2.3, CPO #3, Power Consumption

Is Prime Power Consumption for the CPO limited to radar power usage?

Prime Power Consumption includes all systems in the LES and the radar equipment in the MCF needed during LRDR operations.

DRFP‐179 Section J‐12 (Incentive Plan), Section 2.3, CPO #3, Power Consumption

If non‐radar (i.e. facility) prime power usage is included in the CPO how is the power consumed in the facility provided by MILCON treated in the evaluation?

Non‐radar power usage will not be included. Prime Power Consumption includes all systems in the LES and the radar equipment in the MCF needed for LRDR operations.

DRFP‐180 Section J‐12 (Incentive Plan), Section 2.3, CPO #3, Power Consumption

Is radar power expected to be metered separately? The site will be permanently metered. Radar power will be metered separately during the Acceptance Test.

DRFP‐181 Section J‐12 (Incentive Plan), Section 2.3, CPO #3, Power Consumption

How are variations in power consumption due to environmental conditions accounted for in the comparison of power consumption in the field and as designed?

The Offeror shall identify environmental assumptions in their prime power consumption estimate.

DRFP‐182 Section J‐14 (MDA OCI Policy)

OCI Policy for MiDAESS included in draft RFP. Please confirm LRDR‐specific OCI Policy to be included in Final RFP.

The Government will not have a separate LRDR OCI policy.

DRFP‐183 Section K, 52.227‐15, pages 75 and 82

The FAR clause 52.227‐15 is superseded by the DFARS, which is also in the contract. Because the DFARS supplement applies to DoD procurements, recommend removal of FAR 52.227‐15.

FAR clause 52.227‐15 will be deleted.

DRFP‐185 Section L‐2.4 The provision states all proposals become Government property.

Please confirm the Government property applies to the media only, not any intellectual property aspects.

The Section L language will be revised to indicate that the Government will retain that proposal information required to comply with FAR Subpart 4.8 entitled "GOVERNMENT CONTRACT FILES."

DRFP‐186 Section L‐3.4.2.1.1, Line 1099

Please define "robust discrimination and classifier performance..." The term robust will be removed from this section. Discrimination and classifier performance are defined in the LRDR Element Specification.

DRFP‐187 Section L‐3.4.2.1.2.c/d Section M‐4.1.1.2

Is Offeror correct to assume that the heating/cooling requirements defined in d) are included in the evaluation of total power described in c)? If so, please add the

Section 3.4.2.1.2, ‘Other Hardware Areas’, part (d), calls for a breakdown of the heating and cooling requirements of the major, individual LRDR subsystems. These subsystems will be included, DRFP‐191 Section M‐4.1.1.2 Please define and quantify "robust operations, maintenance and performance at the deployment site".

The term robust will be removed from this section.

DRFP‐193 SOW 3.4.9.4 MAP

3.4.1.12

Production Readiness Risk Assessment (PRRA) ‐ SOW 3.4.9.4 PRRA is conducted prior to the start of production. Conducted at locations manufacturing mission critical HW / key characteristics and processes. The offeror believes this is the same as a PRR called out in

MAP 3.4.1.12.

Will the government confirm the Production Readiness Risk Assessment (PRRA) under SOW 3.4.9.4 and the Production Readiness Review (PRR) under MAP 3.4.1.12 are not independent reviews?

The PRRA will be conducted by the Government based on the findings of the PRR. The PRRA is an outcome, not a separate independent review. The SOW will be updated to clarify roles and responsibilities within the Final RFP.

DRFP‐194 Section L What is the timing on Past Performance Volume in advance of proposal?

The Government anticipates the Past Performance Volume delivery 14 calendar days prior to proposal due date.

DRFP‐195 RFP What is the anticipated proposal delivery response time? The Government anticipates 60 calendar days for proposal submission.