DRFP_R8_Q As_11.24.14.pdf

Number Sequence RFP Section Questions/Comments Responses/Answers

DRFP‐044 Section J: J‐07

FRD

The LES is not included in the Mission Facilities Scope per Section 3.1.2, but later in Section 3.4.1 it is stated that the structural design of the LRDR and associated facilities shall be in accordance with the codes and criteria in Section 2.0. Is the LES structure subject to the codes in Section 2.0 or to the requirements specified in the classified spec for the LES?

The LES structure is technically an equipment shelter (not an occupied facility), however because it interfaces with the foundation it is subject to all applicable building codes and requirements in the FRD. The Radar Prime will have to develop a delta FRD for the LES.

DRFP‐196 L‐3.4.1.7 Tab 7 Section L‐3.4.1.7 Tab 7, states that the Offeror’s proposal shall also include OCI Disclosure Forms.

Offerors are in the process of finalizing teams and therefore, it is being requested that MDA review OCI Disclosure Forms ahead of the Proposal due date. Any issues/concerns which the MDA may have with the Disclosure Forms are requested to be provided back to Offerors as soon as possible.

Recognizing that any OCI concern is critical, confirm that the MDA will accept the submission of the OCI Disclosure Forms prior to RFP issuance?

OCI disclosure forms can be submitted at any time. Submit a written application to obtain approval to participate in this acquisition to the MDA Directorate of Contracting, Sensors, via e‐ mail to the PCO at lrdr_effort@mda.mil. Subject line shall state SN HQ0147‐14‐R‐0002 ‐ OCI.

DRFP‐197 L‐3.3, Tab 2 L3.4.1.2

The page limits in table L‐3.3 for Tab 2 states "2 pages per Prime or Subcontractor", while the instruction under L‐3.4.1.2 indicates "For the prime Offeror and each teammate/subcontractor, a summary not exceeding two‐pages...".

Would the Government confirm that the page limitation is for each Prime or Subcontractor individually?

Yes. This will be confirmed within the RFP.

DRFP‐198 Sections L‐3.3 L‐3.4.1.5 Tab 5 SF33 Sections

A‐K, DD254 L‐

3.4.7 Volume

VII Total Resources Volume (TRV) L‐3.4.7.1 General L‐

3.4.7.3 Total

Material Resources Summary L‐ 3.4.7.6 Narrative basis of estimates (BOEs) L Exhibit 2 Total Resource Workbook

Lines 817 ‐ 819: UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL CONTRACT COST AND PRICING DATA BE INCLUDED IN VOLUMES I THROUGH V (as formatted in DRFP) Lines 996 ‐ 1102: Sections and Documents requiring fill‐ ins include cost, profit, fee, price and target dollars. Lines 2073 ‐ 2075: Volume VII will be made available to support the evaluations of the proposal by the Technical, Management, and Cost Evaluators. Lines 2121 ‐ 2127, Notes included: instruct offerors to provide estimates, substantiation, quotes, cost variances Tab: Material BOE Summary; Cell Address A1: prohibit offerors from including proposed unit prices and extended cost.

Request that the Government clarify its intent regarding the inclusion of cost and pricing data for Volume VII.

Recommend that the Government remove the cost and pricing data requirements from the Excel file Material BOE Summary Tab.

All information relating to contract cost or pricing data SHALL ONLY be included in the section of the proposal designated by the Government as the Cost/Price Proposal Volume (Volume VI) and the Total Resources Volume (Volume VII) except for the pricing information required to be submitted under A through K (Attachment 1 to Volume I), and that information required to be submitted as attachments under Small Business Participation Plan (Volume III, Tab 3).

DRFP‐199 Sections L‐3.3;

Line 817 ‐ 819

Lines 817 ‐ 819: UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL CONTRACT COST AND PRICING DATA BE INCLUDED IN VOLUMES I THROUGH V The Model Contract contains pricing data which is included in Volume 1 ‐ Executive Summary

'Request that the Government clarify its intent regarding the inclusion of cost and pricing data for Volume I.

Specifically request that the Government modify Lines 817 ‐ 819 to read "Under no circumstances shall contract cost and pricing data be included in Volumes II ‐ V"

All information relating to contract cost or pricing data SHALL ONLY be included in the section of the proposal designated by the Government as the Cost/Price Proposal Volume (Volume VI) and the Total Resources Volume (Volume VII) except for the pricing information required to be submitted under A through K (Attachment 1 to Volume I), and that information required to be submitted as attachments under Small Business Participation Plan (Volume III, Tab 3).

DRFP‐200 L‐1.6 Section L‐1.6 Submission Due Date states, "With the exception of the Past Performance Volume the proposal must be received prior to 1600 (4:00 PM) CDT, TBD. Late submissions will not be accepted."

'There are no other references in the RFP with respect to the due date for the Past Performance Volume.

The Contractor assumes that all volumes of the proposal are due on the same date, and that Section L‐

1.6 should be changed to read, "The proposal must be received prior to 1600 (4:00 PM) CDT, [Date TBD].

Late submissions will not be accepted." Please confirm this assumption.

The Final RFP will be updated to indicate both due dates. The due date for the Past Performance Volume is expected to be 15 days prior to the due date for the proposal submission.

DRFP‐201 SN‐LRDR‐ES‐

0001, Section 3.2.11.3

The Missile Comms Interface requirements LES‐218 and LES‐220 both require the LRDR to accept homing data from the missile.

Would the Government provide a definition for "homing data" required in LES‐218 versus "enhanced homing data" required in LES‐220?

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

DRFP‐202 SN‐LRDR‐ES‐

0001, Section

TBS

The Element Specification requires a second face, but does not include requirements from which to derive the performance of the second face

Can the Government provide requirements relevant to the performance of the second face?

The LRDR ES will be updated to clarify the required radar design and associated sensitivities in the Final RFP.

DRFP‐203 SN‐LRDR‐ES‐

0001, Section

TBS

The Element Specification provides requirements for a number of state transitions, but does not define requirements for transition from MAINTENANCE STATE to OPERATE STATE.

Can the Government provide requirements for the latency from MAINTENANCE STATE to OPERATE

STATE?

The LRDR ES States and Modes section will be updated with the Final RFP.

DRFP‐204 SN‐LRDR‐ES‐

0001, Section

TBS

The Element Specification provides requirements for MMAX, the 95 percentile of the time to repair, that is inconsistent with the requirement for MTTR, based on standard assumptions for the distribution function of the time to repair

Nominally MMAX is 4.4 times larger than the MMAX number listed in the Spec given the MTTR specified.

Can the Government clarify whether the MMAX is defined to be the 95th percentile of the time to repair? If so, can the Government clarify the distribution function assumed for the time to repair?

MMAX and MTTR will be updated with the Final RFP.

DRFP‐205 SN‐LRDR‐ES‐

0001, Section

TB

The Element Specification provides requirements for reliability when in the "Alert" state, but "Alert state is not defined elsewhere in the Element Specification

Can the Government clarify whether "Alert" state is the same as STANDBY STATE?

The LRDR ES States and Modes section will be updated with the Final RFP. The Reliability specification will be updated with the correct state and mode.

DRFP‐206 L3.4.3.4 The Section L guidance in this section requests that proposed dollar and percentage goals in terms of subcontracting dollars be included in the Small Business Participation and Commitment Plan which is requested to be submitted as an Attachment to Volume II. Earlier guidance in Section L (Lines 817/818) cites that under no circumstances shall contract costs and pricing data be included in Volumes I‐V.

Would the Government remove the requirement to include proposed dollar amounts for Small Business in the Small Business Participation and Commitment Plan?

Small Business Participation and Commitment Plan will be required to be submitted as an attachment to the Management Volume within the RFP.

DRFP‐207 L‐3.4.5.2, Page 40, Lines 1641‐

'Section L, Paragraph L‐3.4.5.2 Tab 2: Past Performance Reference List (PPRL) (Attachment L‐4) states in part, "The Offeror shall provide a completed Past Performance Reference List (PPRL) per Attachment L‐4 identifying the contracts to be provided for past performance evaluation as Past Performance Information (PPI) and the associated Points of Contact who will be sent Past Performance Questionnaires

(PPQ)."

Per Section L, Paragraph L‐3.3, Tab 2 (PPRL) is allocated 10 pages in the written proposal Volume 5 Past Performance.

Attachment L‐4 was provided to the Contractor as an MS Excel file.

The contractor assumes that the 10 written pages in Volume 5 Tab 2 are to be used to fulfill the requirements in Paragraph L‐3.4.5.2. The Attachment L‐4 is to be provided to the Government as a separate MS Excel file, and does not count against the 10 written pages of Tab 2. A hardcopy of the Attachment 4 MS Excel foldout is to be included in the printed copy of Volume 5. Please confirm these assumptions.

The PPRL will be removed in the Final RFP as an attachment. The information required is to be submitted under Tab 2 of the Past Performance Volume.

DRFP‐208 FRD Sect 8.1

Draft FRD Section 8.1 defines various JOD dates for the MILCON site contractor. JOD1 is date when steel erection for the LES can start. JOD2 is when MCR meets environmental conditions for LRDR equipment installation into the MCF. JOD3 is when backup power is available.

Will the government provide dates when prime power is expected to be available for end‐item electrical distribution?

Prime Power availability will be clarified within the Final RFP. JOD3 is the expected date for backup and prime power electrical distribution.

DRFP‐209 Section L 3.4.2.2.2

The Radar Algorithm Assessment requirements allow for unlimited pages to describe algorithms, models, assumptions, et al that were used to meet the Offeror’s performance claims for acquisition, track, discrimination, hit assessment, and raid handling against Section 3.0 of the LRDR Element Specification.

It also allows for up to 50 pages to provide relevant documentation associated with the algorithms, models, assumptions, et al.

The Contractor interprets the requirements of L‐3.4.2.2.2, Tab 2B, of Technical Volume, to be:

The Offeror shall submit all relevant documentation (white papers) associated with the Offeror’s performance claims for acquisition, track, discrimination, hit assessment, and raid handling against Section 3.0 of the LRDR Element Specification. This documentation shall be limited to 50 pages.

The Offeror shall submit any algorithms, mathematical/statistical models, assumptions, executables, outputs to ballistic missile defense raid scenarios and source code (e.g. Excel Spreadsheet, Matlab scripts, C++) that were used to meet the items in the preceding paragraph. This information does not count toward the Volume II page count.

The interpretation is correct.

DRFP‐210 SN‐LRDR‐ES‐

0001, Section

3.2.3.2 and Section L page

LES‐28 requires the LRDR to "transition from STANDBY and OPERATE within 2 seconds from receipt of command". However, text near the top of page 29 in Section L defines STANDY as "ready to radiate within 5 minutes of notice".

Would the Government confirm that the requirement for transition from STANDBY state to OPERATE is within 5 minutes of notice?

The LRDR ES States and Modes section will be updated with the Final RFP.

DRFP‐211 Section L‐ 3.4.1.7 Attachment L‐

Section L‐3.4.1.7 calls for the submission of the OCI Disclosure Forms. Lines 1018 ‐ 1019 state in part "a description of the work performed or being performed;".

Attachment L‐1 states "One OCI Analysis/Disclosure Form shall be submitted for EACH BMD or BMD‐ related contract or subcontract currently being performed."

It is not clear whether or not an OCI Disclosure Form is needed for work performed or being performed.

Would the Government confirm that the submission of OCI Disclosure Forms only applies to efforts currently (i.e. not required for contracts closed out) being performed by prime contractors and subcontracts?

L‐1 will be updated to agree with the L Instructions.

DRFP‐212 Section L‐3.4‐ 1.7

Section L‐3.4.1.7 states in part "The submission shall identify all of its team's MDA‐funded contracts or subcontracts; BMDS‐related contracts or subcontracts; and any significant, non‐BMDS related business relationships with firms doing business with or in support of MDA." It is unclear if this is a requirement for all subcontractors or just to those supplying engineering type services and not commodity suppliers.

Would the Government confirm that OCI Disclosure Forms are not required for commodity suppliers?

The OCI Disclosure Forms are not required for commodity suppliers.

DRFP‐213 DRFP Section L‐3.4.2.1.1, Technical Volume Tab 1A ‐ System Architecture

Please refer to Section L, Lines 1053 through 1062. We believe that the "Offeror Shall Address" requirements specified in subparagraphs a. and b. are duplicative. We recommend that they be combined. Does MDA agree with this recommendation?

Comment noted. Section L will be updated in the Final RFP.

DRFP‐214 DRFP Section L‐3.4.2.1.1, Technical Volume Tab 1A ‐ System Architecture

Please refer to Section L, Lines 1064 and 1065. We believe that the "Offeror Shall Address" requirements specified in subparagraph c. regarding range of sensitivity values defined in the Element Spec (ES) are a proper subset of the information required for Technical Volume Tab 1A subparagraphs a. and b. (see question directly above). We assume the LES requirements involved are LES‐2, LES‐513, LES‐514, LES‐ 515, and LES‐516. If this is incorrect, please clarify. We recommend combining this topic with the topics listed in Technical Volume Tab 1A subparagraph a. above, since a. already includes all functional, performance, and interface requirements. Additionally, the outline for Section L doesn't match the order provided in Section M. We recommend the MDA consider aligning the outlines provided in the DRFP for Section L and Section M in order to facilitate both proposal preparation and post‐submittal evaluation of offers. Does MDA agree with each of these two (2) recommendations?

Sections L & M will be updated in the Final RFP to clarify requirements and alignment.

DRFP‐215 DRFP Section L‐3.4.2.1.1, Technical Volume Tab 1A ‐ System Architecture

Please refer to Section L, Line 1109 regarding scalability of the architecture. The outline for Section L doesn't match the order provided in Section M. We recommend the MDA consider aligning the outlines provided in the DRFP for Section L and Section M in order to facilitate both proposal preparation and post‐submittal evaluation of offers. Does MDA agree with this recommendation?

Sections L & M will be updated in the Final RFP to clarify requirements and alignment.

DRFP‐216 DRFP Section L‐3.4.2.1.1, Technical Volume Tab 1A ‐ System Architecture

Please refer to Section L, Lines 1074 and 1075 regarding the design and architecture enabling local and remote testing, training, simulation and operation in accordance with the LRDR system specifications.

Section L presently requires this material to be located in two places (this Tab 1A and Tab 2A ‐ see Section L Lines 1231 and 1232). We recommend covering this topic once in this Volume, under Technical Volume Tab 1A, System Architecture. Does MDA agree with this recommendation?

The Government will consider the recommendation for Section L.

DRFP‐217 DRFP Section L‐3.4.2.1.1, Technical Volume Tab 1A ‐ System Architecture

Please refer to Section L, Lines 1077 through 1079 regarding how the proposed design and architecture support the Reliability and Maintainability requirements of the ES. The Section M wording specifically addresses Ao, while the Section L wording is broader, accounting for reliability and maintainability requirements more generally. Additionally, this material is required to be included in the RAM‐T portion of the Technical Volume. We recommend expanding the Section M language to include reliability, availability, maintainability, and testability, in order for Section M to align with the Section L outline.

Additionally, we recommend combining/consolidating all RAM‐T discussions to be within the RAM‐T portion of the Technical Volume. Does MDA agree with each of these two (2) recommendations?

The Government will consider the recommendations for Sections L and M.

DRFP‐218 DRFP Section L‐3.4.3.1.1, Management Volume, Tab 1A ‐ Manufacturin g Capability and Facilities

Section L‐3.4.3.1.1, Manufacturing Capability and Facilities, of the Draft RFP states "Description of capabilities shall include capacity," but its corresponding evaluation criteria (Section M‐4.2.1) makes no mention of capacity. To ensure that the Government selects a contractor with sufficient production capacity available to meet the Government's 2020 IOC requirement, we recommend that the phrase "Manufacturing capability and facilities" in Section M‐4.2.1 be amended to read "Manufacturing capability and facilities, to include manufacturing capacity". Does the MDA agree with this recommendation?

The Government will consider the recommended update to Section M for consistency.

DRFP‐219 DRFP

Statement of Work, Section 3.1.4, Business Operations, and Attachment J‐ 09, CSDR Plan and Specified Program WBS

Section 3.1.4.4 of the draft SOW states "the IMP and IMS shall be traceable to the CWBS, EVMS and the SOW", and Section 3.1.4.2 states "the contractor shall develop and maintain the CWBS and CWBS dictionary (CDRL A004) consistent with the CSDR Manual (DoD 5000.04‐M‐1), and MIL‐STD‐881C, using the WBS structure contained in the Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) plan". Based on our review of DRFP Attachment 9 (the draft CSDR Plan and its' draft Program WBS), in conjunction with our review of the draft SOW, we believe the WBS (Program Level) of the draft CSDR Plan provided as Attachment 9 does not fully reflect all of the DRFP SOW tasks nor the DRFP Section J‐1 Exhibit A CDRL guidance for the program. We recommend a hybrid MIL‐STD‐881C‐compliant Contract WBS incorporating the attributes of the MIL‐STD ‐881C Appendix B (Electronic Systems) WBS for the radio frequency hardware and embedded software (SOW paragraph 3.7), the Appendix K (Automated Information System) WBS for the signal and data processing components and Modeling & Simulation (SOW paragraphs 3.6 and 3.8), and a facilities construction WBS compliant with Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3‐740‐05 (Handbook:

Construction Cost Estimating) for LRDR Equipment Shelter (LES) and Mission Control Facility (MCF) Equipment Installation (SOW paragraph 3.9), We believe this CWBS approach provides the required amount of Government visibility for all SOW tasks, 3.1 through 3.15, including visibility for those lower‐ level tasks deemed high‐cost, high‐risk, or high technical interest; reflects the unique nature and significance of the different developmental products; and ensures full alignment with MIL‐STD‐881C.

Does MDA agree with this recommendation, and if so, will MDA allow the Offeror to submit an alternative CWBS with its' offer/proposal which reflects all SOW tasks? Alternatively, would MDA consider allowing the Offeror to submit an alternate CWBS which is fully aligned with MIL‐STD ‐881C, UFC 3‐740‐05, and all SOW sections prior to the final RFP release, to allow for OSD DCARC/OSD DDCA review and approval of a revised LRDR Program WBS prior to final RFP release?

Per CDRL A004, the CWBS will be developed using the latest version of the MIL‐STD‐881 as a guide.

As described in the CDRL, Contractor format may be acceptable as long as the WBS integrity is maintained in consonance with the guidance in MIL‐STD‐881. The contractor format requires a draft submission reviewed and accepted by the Government 60 days post award.

DRFP‐220 DRFP Section L‐3.4.4, Data Rights, Volume IV

This section states (Lines 1515 ‐ 1519) "It is the Government's intent and goal that all non‐commercial technical data (TD) and computer software/computer software documentation (CS/CSD) be delivered with Unlimited Rights. If such noncommercial TD/CS/CSD contains elements generated previously with Offeror's own capital, it is the Government's goal that the TD/CS/CSD be delivered with a minimum of Government Purpose Rights (as defined in DFARS 252.227‐7013 and ‐7014)". Recognizing that the Government desires to leverage its prior investment in the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program, and recognizing also that SBIR Phase I/II/III awardees, as defined within the Small Business Administration's SBIR Program Policy Directive (24 February 2014), are required to provide, in most cases, Limited and Restricted License Rights only to the Government for a specified time period, we recommend that the MDA modify/tailor this portion of Section L in order to compartmentalize the TD/CS/CSD license rights which will inure to the Government in the event SBIR Phase I/II/III awardees are awarded Phase III subcontracts by the successful prime Offeror. We recommend also that DFARS 252.227‐7018, "Rights in noncommercial technical data and computer software ‐ Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program" be added to Section I of the RFP, and a requirement for completion of "The ‐7018 List" be incorporated into Section L‐3.4.4 as well.

The Government will take the recommendations under review consideration.

DRFP‐221 DRFP, Section L, 3.4.3.4, Small Business Participation and Commitment, Participation Plan and Commitment

The Small Business Participation Plan and Commitment section, beginning on line 1443 of the DRFP, requires in the fourth paragraph that Offerors clearly describe the nature of the commitment, and provides two examples: a fully executed teaming agreement, or planned purchase orders. Also within this section, MDA states the importance of leveraging the Government’s investment in SBIR/STTR companies. We believe that in order for the Government to fully leverage and obtain return on that investment, and with the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Policy Directives applicable to SBIR Phase III awards (provided in the DoD SBIR Desk Reference Guide, Annex A) in mind, we believe it is in the Government’s interest to prohibit, in the final RFP, exclusive teaming agreements between potential primes and LRDR potential subcontractors which are/were SBIR Phase I and/or II awardees for software and algorithm development which are applicable to the LRDR procurement. Exclusivity, we believe, would countermand the Government’s Policy Directives intended to leverage the SBIR Phase I and II investments it has made previously, and could potentially create a situation where an SBIR software or algorithm developer is precluded from participating in the LRDR effort (a Phase III SBIR award by Policy Directive definition) because of being teamed exclusively with an unsuccessful offeror. With the above considerations in mind, we respectfully request that the final RFP not allow exclusive teaming agreements or joint ventures between prospective primes and SBIR Phase I/II contractors which have developed software or algorithms applicable to the LRDR mission. In addition, the Government, based on prior knowledge it may possess of the SBIR LRDR software and/or algorithm development contractors and associated SBIR Phase I/II awards, may consider specifying certain SBIR contractors as Directed Sources for software and algorithm development to all potential primes, thereby ensuring SBIR Phase III for LRDR software development meets both the intent and spirit of the SBA Policy Directive applicable to SBIR Phase III contract awards following completion of Phase I/ II work.

Open teaming is encouraged in accordance with Section L.

DRFP‐222 DRFP One‐on‐ One Conduct

Does the Government intend to provide answers, or Government response, to selected topics covered in the One‐on‐One sessions, prior to the Final RFP release?

The Government has responded to all questions submitted in conjunction with One‐on‐One sessions.

DRFP‐223 DRFP Will the Government provide the latest Threat Data to all potential Offerors? Target trajectories will be provided when available.

DRFP‐224 Section J SOW There appears to be an inconsistency between the requirements of 3.5 Logistics and 3.0.3 LRDR Initial Spares CLIN 0003 description.

3.0.3, LRDR Initial Spares (CLIN 0003), states "The contractor shall provide initial spares for the LRDR..."

However, 3.5.3.3, Readiness Based Sparing Analysis, under 3.5 Logistics, states "The contractor shall perform a Readiness Based Sparing Analysis (ADP 041) IAW DoD 4140.1.R. The Analysis will identify the spares that are required in sufficient quantities to meet radar operational availability and reliability requirements for a 3 year period after DD250 delivery." and

3.5.13 Initial Spares (Separate CLIN) states "The contractor shall provide a recommended list of initial spares (ADP 050) that will support the ES, Operational Mode Summary and Mission Profile of the LRDR for a 3 year period. The procurement decision for initial spares will be the outcome of a provisioning conference between the Government and contractor."

Could the Government clarify the scope of CLIN 3? Should the Offeror propose cost for the initial spares or only bid the analysis and provisioning scope listed in 3.5? Note that the period of performance of 6/1/15 ‐ 10/31/19 is more in line with the scope of 3.5.

The Government will review the sections and ensure consistency between the SOW requirements in the Final RFP.

DRFP‐225 DRFP To ensure a comprehensive and competitive facilities bid, we request that all Offerors have access to both Clear AFS and Eareckson Air Station at Shemya prior to final RFP release.

The Government does not contemplate conducting site visits in conjunction with this procurement.

DRFP‐226 Attachment L‐ 5 Past Performance Information (PPI) Form

Instructions provided to the Contractor within Attachment L‐5, paragraphs 8 and 9, state that "Comments on this page shall be 10 font or greater."

Would the Government consider modifying the instructions for paragraph 7 to be consistent with paragraphs 8 and 9 (i.e. Comments on this page shall be 10 font or greater.).

The Government will review Attachment L‐5 and consider modifying the instructions.

DRFP‐227 DRFP Will there be more DRFP Q&As going forward to address questions raised during the One‐on‐Ones? The Government has responded to all questions submitted in conjunction with One‐on‐One sessions.

DRFP‐228 DRFP Is there a formal process through MDA to request site access, or should we reach out to the USAF for access?

The Government does not contemplate conducting site visits in conjunction with this procurement.

DRFP‐229 PMAP Will the Government confirm that the Prime Offeror is required to use the Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA) Trusted Foundry Program?

The Prime Offeror is required to comply with the MDA Parts, Materials, and Processes Mission Assurance Plan (PMAP). Per PMAP Section 3.2.7, Integrated circuit products shall be procured from a trusted supplier accredited by the DMEA when they are custom‐designed, custom‐ manufactured, or tailored for a specific DoD military end use.

DRFP‐230 SOW

paragraph

3.4.7 Human

Systems Integration

(HSI)

The SOW, paragraph 3.4.7, states in part, "The contractor shall employ Human Systems Integration (HSI) principles during system design, development and sustainment engineering efforts IAW MIL‐STD‐1472F."

The Offeror assumes that subject paragraph can be revised to reference MIL‐STD‐1472G instead. Would the Government revise the reference paragraph to MIL‐STD‐1472G?

The latest version of MIL‐STD‐1472 will be referenced in the Final RFP. G is the expected version.