DRFP_Round3_Q As_09.17.14.pdf

LRDR DRFP: HQ0147-14-R-0002

Industry Questions and Answers Round 3

Number

Sequence

RFP Section Questions/Comments Responses/Answers

DRFP-009 Section J:

SOW 3.1.4.4

It is understood that the Contractor will develop, deliver and maintain a LRDR resource loaded IMS. The SOW states

“The IMS shall comprise necessary links and dependencies to the following Government Furnished Information (GFI):

MILCON site Construction IMS, C2BMC IMS, the OSF

IMS and the BMDS Integrated Master Test Plan (IMTP).”

Will the Government confirm that the Government will act as the lead schedule integrator (e.g. coordinate IMS integration meetings, facilitate/reconcile differences, resolve critical paths)?

As stated in SOW paragraph 3.1.4.4, the Contractor shall provide stringent maintenance and updating of the IMS to identify and resolve conflicting activities for the duration of the LRDR project. In addition, the requirements to provide for synchronized integration (including integration with requirements that may be performed by other contractors) are addressed in Clause H-33 entitled "Program

Synchronization." Accordingly, the Government, as the customer, expects the Contractor to fully address schedule issues that may arise.

Offerors are reminded that the Integrated Master Schedule proposed will be incorporated into the resulting contract and will not be changed without Government concurrence.

The Government will review the existing SOW to determine if there is a need to further define a means to facilitate schedule integration.

DRFP-010 Section I FAR clauses 52.227-14, along with its alternates I and III, 52.227-15 and 52.227-21 are already covered under DFAR

252.227-7013, -7014 and -7030.

Would the Government consider removing FAR clauses

52.227-14, along with it’s alternates I and III, 52.227-15 and

52.227-21?

The FAR clauses cited in the question will be deleted.

DRFP-011 Section J:

Document

Spec

C2BMC-LRDR ICD and RKV-LRDR Interface

Specification were referenced in the LRDR Element Spec but not provided in the referenced documents.

Would the Government provide the C2BMC-LRDR ICD and

RKV-LRDR Interface Specification so that the Offeror can assess and incorporate the requirements appropriately?

The Government is determining which specific requirements documents are to be provided with the final RFP. The

Element Specification will be modified to reference the applicable documents.

DRFP-012 Section J, J-

02-32, BMDS

Security

Classification

Guide

The BMDS SCG refers in many places (e.g., section 901.2.1, section 1213, section 1401.2) to a classified Appendix 1, but we have not been able to locate that document among the classified documents already provided. Please provide the classified Appendix 1 to the BMDS SCG as soon as possible.

The BMDS SCG classified Appendix 1 was not provided. It will be provided with the next update to the Offerors'

Library.

DRFP-013 Section L: L-

3.4.1.6

Section L-3.4.1.6 states that Offeror shall complete representations, certifications, acknowledgements and statements via the Online Representations and Certifications

Application (ORCA) (http://orca.bpn.gov). A copy of the

Offeror’s ORCA data sheet print-out shall be provided in this tab. The ORCA system has been replaced with the System for Award Management Maintenance (SAM)

(www.sam.gov). The System for Award Management (SAM) is the Official U.S. Government system that consolidated the capabilities of CCR/FedReg, ORCA, and EPLS.

Would the Government update Section L-3.4.1.6 to state the following:

The Offeror shall complete representations, certifications, acknowledgements and statements via the System for Award

Management Maintenance (SAM) (www.sam.gov). A copy of the Offeror’s SAM data sheet print-out shall be provided in this tab.

The Government will update Section L-3.4.1.6 to state the following:

The Offeror shall complete representations, certifications, acknowledgements and statements via the System for Award

Management Maintenance (SAM) (www.sam.gov). A copy of the Offeror’s SAM data sheet print-out shall be provided in this tab.

DRFP-015 Section I Since the Draft RFP includes DFARS 252.227-7013, -7014, -

7017 and -7027, we recommend that the MDA delete these

FAR clauses from the Final RFP: FAR 52.227-14, FAR

52.227-14 Alt I, FAR 52.227-14 Alt III (which are all within

Section I) and FAR 52.227-15 of Section K. This will eliminate a potential source of confusion and clarify the format the Contractor will use to specify its' assertions and associated license rights the Government will receive. It will also clarify the proper marking format of technical data or computer software to be delivered under the contract.

The FAR clauses in the question will be deleted.

DRFP-016 Section B The contract type is not specified for CLINs 0002, 1000 and

3000. In reviewing the SOW scope and risk associated with these CLINs, we believe that the appropriate contract type for

CLINs 0002 and 3000 is FFP LOE, and that the appropriate contract type for CLIN 1000 is CPIF. Please confirm and/or provide the contract types for these CLINs.

The Government will take the suggestions provided in the question under consideration. Contract types for those

CLINs will be defined in the final RFP.

DRFP-017 Sections B &

F

CLINs 1000 and 1001, LRDR Studies and Analysis and

Associated Travel, are specified as Options in Section B.

However, Section F specifies the PoP for these CLINs as

6/1/15 to 3/31/23. Are CLINS 1000 and 1001 options or base award CLINs? Or is the Section F PoP for each of these

CLINs from the date of Option Exercise to 3/31/23?

CLINs 1000 and 1001 are options; the option exercise period and period of performance after option exercise will be defined in the RFP.

DRFP-020 Section H: H-

Clause H-02, Level of Effort. We do not see any LOE hours specified elsewhere in the RFP Schedule, as stated within clause H-02. Please clarify.

Contract types for those CLINs will be defined in the final

RFP.

DRFP-021 Section H: H-

Clause H-41, "Cost Estimating Methods". Regarding the specified 10-day submittal requirement for Not-to-Exceed

(NTE) proposals, which are required to be binding, valid for

180 days, and supported by underlying BOE's and CBOM data integrity, can the period be changed from 10 days to 30 days for submittal of binding NTE offers?

H-41 is a standard local clause and will not be altered.

DRFP-023 Section I DFARS 252.227-7020, "Rights in Special Works". We suggest deletion of this clause, as it appears to contradict the

Limited/Restricted or Government Purpose License Rights which flow from and apply to DFARS 252.227-7013, -7014, -

7017. Does the MDA agree with this recommendation?

The Government has reviewed the suggestion and the clauses will remain.

DRFP-026 Section J:

Attachment J-

For Section 4.0 Post Robust Homeland Defense O&S (CLIN

2001/2003), please provide the Performance Incentive total pool dollars available as a percentage of the CLIN 2001

Target Fee.

The performance incentive available will be defined in the final RFP.

DRFP-027 Section J:

Attachment J-

Section 4.0 states that quarterly evaluations will be made, a total of four (4) over the 1-year PoP of CLIN 2001; however, RFP Section B calls out a 2-Year PoP for CLIN 2001. Please clarify.

Section F will be corrected to show a Period of

Performance of one year for CLIN 2001.

DRFP-028 Section J:

SOW Section

3.4.6.1

The SOW states that the system safety program must be in compliance with MDA Assurance Provisions (MAP) dated

13-Jun-14, but this document was not provided in the Draft

RFP package. Please provide this reference document.

The MAP was included in the draft RFP package. Refer to page 2614 of attachment J-02A (GFI - Compliance

Documents).

DRFP-029 DRFP The two GFI documents provided in the Draft RFP package do not include some referenced documents:

• J-02-28 MDA Directive 5000.17

• J-02-50 National Security Telecommunications and

Information Systems Security Policy (NSTISSP) Number 11

• J-02-56 SNE-PLAN -2014-###

• J-02-57 TDI 523

• J-02-61 MDA Briefing Format Template

• J-02-64 MDA Manufacturing Assessment Plan Rev A

Please provide these documents.

Document J-02-28 was not included in the draft RFP package. It will be included in the unclassified Offerors'

Library update.

The other documents were provided in the draft RFP package. Refer to page 206 of attachment J-02A (GFI -

Compliance Documents) for J-02-50. See page 7237 for J-

02-56. See page 7280 for J-02-57 which contains Form 523 in the Appendix. See page 2563 for J-02-61. See page 2082 for J-02-64.

DRFP-030 Section J:

SOW Section

3.4.6.1

The SOW states that the system safety program must be in compliance with the MDA Sensors (SN) System Safety

Management Plan (SSMP), but this document was not provided in the Draft RFP package. Please provide this document.

This document was not included in the draft RFP package.

A draft version of the document will be included in the next unclassified Offerors' Library update.

DRFP-031 Section J:

SOW Section

3.4.6.1

The SOW states system safety program investigating and reporting shall be IAW MDA 6055.02-M, Safety 1653

Investigations and Reporting Manual dated 29-Mar-06, but this document was not provided in the Draft RFP package.

Please provide this reference document.

MDA 6055.02-M has been cancelled by MDA Instruction

6055.02 which was provided in the draft RFP package.

See statement 1.b in the Instruction. Section 3.4.6.1 of the

SOW will be changed to no longer invoke MDA 6055.02-M as a compliance document.

DRFP-032 Section J:

SOW Section

3.4.6.2

The SOW states system safety program shall comply with

MDA Policy Memorandum #73, MDA Policy for Quality, Safety, and Mission Assurance Directorate Access Authority dated 16-Sep-13, but this document was not provided in the

Draft RFP package. Please provide this reference document.

This document was provided in the draft RFP package. See page 2581 in attachment J-02A (GFI - Compliance

Documents).

DRFP-033 Section L: L-

3.4.3

Section L-3.4.3, Management (Factor 2) (Volume III), states that various Attachments are to be provided “to Volume II," which is the Technical Volume and not the Management. Is this reference to Volume II a typographic error?

The reference to "Volume II" in Section L-3.4.3.1.2 is a typographical error. RFP will be corrected to read "Volume

III".

DRFP-034 Section L: L-

3.4.3

Section L-3.4.3 states that “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.” However, in line 1331 of Section L-3.4.3 a fourth

Attachment (Resumes) is requested. Will the Resumes

Attachment also not count against the Volume page limits, like the other three Management Volume Attachments?

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 corrected 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-036 Section J:

Section 3.4.11

The SOW states that the Offeror is responsible for out-of-production mitigation of obsolete parts during the performance of this contract and for two years beyond that period. Since the contract has multiple options that may not be exercised, the contract length becomes undefinable. We recommend redefining this responsibility relative to the

DD250 or another event. Does the MDA agree with this recommendation?

The Government recognizes there are disparities between the

SOW and Section F, which will be corrected in the final

RFP.

DRFP-037 Section H: H-

Clause MDA H-09, Organizational Conflict of Interest (June

2012), is incorporated by reference but we cannot locate the full text of this clause on the FAR, DFARS or Other Agency

FAR Site database. Please provide the full text of clause

MDA H-09 OCI (June 2012).

The full text of clause H-09 will be provided with the final

RFP.

DRFP-042 ES Version

0.1

For LES-69, LES-71, and LES-72, we presume that the requirement is for LRDR to provide the capability for the radar operator to perform the stated coordination (similar to the wording in LES-70). If this is not a correct presumption, please clarify LES-69, LES-71, and LES-72.

The Element Specification will address requirements for dynamic load shedding in the final RFP.

DRFP-045 SEP Figure

3.1-1

Figure 3.1-1, “Draft LRDR Master Plan”, in the LRDR

Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) Version 1.0 indicates that the 35%, 65%, and 95% Facilities Design Reviews are scheduled for FY16 and FY17. However, Figure 4.2.1.2-1, “USACE Development Roadmap”, in the LRDR SEP V1.0 indicates that all 3 reviews are to be held in FY16. Please correct this discrepancy by clarifying the Facilities Design

Review schedule.

The LRDR SEP will be updated and aligned with the Final

RFP Section F.

DRFP-046 Section F Section F indicates that the 35% Facilities Design Review is scheduled for 13 months After Contract Award (ACA). But

Section 3.9, lines 2861-2862, of the SOW indicate that this

Review is scheduled for approximately 60 days ACA. Please correct this discrepancy by revising the Section F reference to be in accordance with the requirement of lines 2861-2862 of the SOW.

The SOW will be updated and aligned with the Final RFP

Section F.

DRFP-049 ES Version

0.1

LES-195 references a "RKV - LRDR Interface

Specification", which is not listed in Section 2.1. Please provide a copy of this specification.

The Government is determining which specific requirement documents are to be provided with the final RFP. The

Element Specification will be modified to reference the applicable documents.

DRFP-050 ES Version

0.1

LES-194 references an "S-Band re-radiation system" and

LES-201 references a "Launch and Test Support Equipment

(L&TSE)" capability. Are these the same capability? Also, LES-201 requires an interface to the "Launch and Test

Support Equipment (L&TSE)". Please provide a copy of the interface specification.

The Government is determining which specific requirement documents are to be provided with the final RFP. The

Element Specification will be modified to reference the applicable documents.

DRFP-051 Section J:

SOW

The SOW includes many references to Accessible Data

Product (ADP) guidance, but no such guidance was found in the Draft RFP package. Please provide a copy of the ADP guidance.

Please reference Data Accession List (DAL) CDRL 09. The

ADP worksheet will be included in an Unclassified Bidder's

Library update.

DRFP-054 Section J:

SOW 3.4.7

The spec for Human Factors references MIL-STD-1472G while the SOW references MIL-STD-1472F. Which version of this standard should be used?

MIL-STD-1472G is the correct version and was provided in

J-02A (See J-02-44, beginning page 3579). The SOW reference will be corrected for the final RFP.

DRFP-056 ES Version

0.1

LES-4 references MDA-STD-004, but that standard was not provided in the GFI we received with the draft RFP. Please provide MDA-STD-004.

The Government will provide the document in a classified

Offerors' Library update.

DRFP-057 ES Version

0.1

Section 3.2.14.1 of the LES is blank. Was this material unintentionally omitted or will it be provided in the Final

RFP?

An updated Element Specification will be provided with the

Final RFP.

DRFP-064 One-on-One In order to adequately cover all of the subject material stated in the MDA letter posted on 08/27, representatives beyond the 5 allowed will be needed.

Would the Government increase the number of representatives from 5 to 10 for the one-on-one sessions?

The Government has considered this request and will allow up to 8 representatives from each team to attend the one-on-one session. Update the attendee list via email and submit the VAR accordingly.

DRFP-065 SOW 3.1.7.2 Please provide referenced PPP and threat documents. The Government is refining requirements and all necessary associated documentation will be updated in the

Final RFP.

DRFP-068 FRD Page 27

(3.7.1)

Please confirm GVEA high voltage is 13.8kv. The statement should read 138.8kv. The FRD will be corrected for the final RFP.

DRFP-069 J-07, Page 57 Please confirm that the referenced "MCF Power Plant" is the same as the "MCF Emergency Power Plant."

Yes, they are the same. Final RFP will provide updated language. Final RFP will provide updated language.

DRFP-070 SOW 3.1.7.4 Please confirm overall force protection of IESS, including outside perimeter, is provided by COCOM, not the Offeror.

The force protection is not the responsibility of the Offeror.

Final RFP will be updated.

DRFP-074 Section L

Page 44.

Lines 1841 -

1842 and

1854 -1855

Please confirm that the total dollar value of the Performance

Incentives will be in addition to the respective CLIN 0001

Target Profit and CLINs 2002 and 2003 Target Fee. For example, if Target Profit for CLIN 0001 is $100, then the total combined dollar value of the CLINs 0006, 0007, and

0008 would be $50. In other words, there is no 50% reduction of the CLIN 0001 Target Profit.

Yes, it is separate in the draft RFP. The overall incentive structure is currently under review and will take into account feedback from Industry.

DRFP-075 J-12 Incentive

Plan Page 9.

Line 163 and

Section F of

Model

Contract

Please clarify the period of performance of CLIN 2001. Line

163 of J-12 Incentive Plan indicates a one-year period of performance for CLIN 2001, while Section F of the model contract indicates a two-year period of performance for CLIN

2001.

Section F will be corrected to indicate that the period of performance will be for one year after exercise of the CLIN

2001 option.

DRFP-076 J-07, Page 52 Please confirm the 4160V Power Factor will be no less than

0.90.

The Government provided power will have a power factor greater than 0.90.

DRFP-080 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-4.1.1.1 of section M indicates that the

Government will evaluate the extent the system architecture supports scalability to enable future field upgrades. Does this refer specifically to the two requirements in the Element

Specification for Future Growth: LES-515 and 516, or does it also refer to LES-473, LES-474, LES-521, and LES-224, which are tagged as "future" requirements, but are not relevant to scalability? If it does not refer specifically to the last four requirements, how will the Offerer's proposal be evaluated by Government, with respect to those four "future" requirements?

The baseline LRDR design shall support a fielded radar of any sensitivity and field of regard selected by the

Government at contract award from a range of values defined in the LRDR Element Specification. The Element

Specification is being revised to clarify this capability, and a final version will be provided with the Final RFP.

DRFP-081 Section L The last subsection (h.) of Section L-3.4.2.1.1 requires the

Offeror to describe "scalability of the architecture to support various sensitivity (detection range, etc.) and performance

(Field of Regard, etc. ) design goals."

Two questions:

1) So that there is no misinterpretation, would the

Government replace the two instances of "etc." with a specific parameter,

2) Would the Government provide the design goal value for the field of regard, as it is not provided in the Element

Specification?

The Government is refining requirements and will update the

Final RFP.

DRFP-082 SN-LRDR-

TPM-1

The table of TPMs includes a column for Objective values for each parameter which are currently TBD. The Element

Specification does not mention or include entries for

Objective values for any of the parameters, and Section M of the RFP makes no mention of how exceeding the threshold requirements or meeting the objective requirements would affect the evaluation.

Does the Government intend to establish values for the objective requirements for these parameters into the Element

Specification?

How will the Government evaluate the proposal for performance of parameters that exceed the threshold requirements?

The Government is refining requirements and will update the

Final RFP.

DRFP-084 One-on-One Do we need to bring our classified equipment? If a company wants to present a classified briefing, they must bring their own equipment. No connectivity to the MDA classified network will be provided.

DRFP-085 One-on-One Are there any pre-meeting questions MDA would like to have answered?

Prior to the planned one-on-one sessions the Government requests a price estimate by Government fiscal year for the following radar configurations at Eareckson Air Station and

Clear Air Force Station, Alaska:

- S-band single face populated

- S-band dual face radar with primary face populated

- S-band dual face with both faces populated

DRFP-086 One-on-One Do we need to send the presentation ahead of time? The Government will not accept read-aheads of the presentation material. Provide 10 hard copies at the time of the presentation.

DRFP-087 One-on-One Is the conduct of the meeting intended to be interactive? As stated in the Draft RFP Notice the Government is interested in gaining Industry feedback on the DRFP.

Therefore most of the time allotted for the one-on-one session involves the Government listening to that feedback.

The Government does intend to ask clarification questions, as needed, after the one-on-one presentation concludes.

DRFP-088 One-on-One May we receive a list of MDA personnel attending the meeting?

MDA personnel will be introduced during the one-on-one session.

DRFP-089 One-on-One Would the Government increase the number of representatives for the one-on-one sessions?

The Government has considered this request and will allow up to 8 representatives from each team to attend the one-on-one session. Update the attendee list via email and submit the VAR accordingly.

DRFP-093 SN-LRDR-ES-

Requirement LES-2 of the Element Specification requires a particular sensitivity "on boresite", but doesn't define the array normal orientation.

Will the Government specify the array normal orientation

(azimuthal orientation and tiltback)?

Sensitivity on array boresight is not reliant on azimuth or elevation of array normal orientation.

The final orientation of the LRDR array(s) is site and design specific and will be determined through detailed analysis after contract award.

DRFP-095 SN-LRDR-ES-

0001 Section

3.2.2.6

Section 3.2.2.6 of the Element Specification requires capability for reduced power operation, but the reduced power level is not quantified.

Can the Government quantify what is meant by "reduced power operations"? For example, is the intention to reduce average power (i.e.., to support reduced power consumption) or peak power/EIRP (i.e., to reduce radiated emissions)?

Engineering is working to refine this section. The LRDR

Element Specification will continue to be refined and included with the final RFP.

DRFP-098 SN-LRDR-ES-

Table A-6 is missing units for the ERP parameter.

Table A-6 is missing units for the ERP parameter. Would the Government provide the missing units for the ERP parameter?

The units are watts for a specified polarization. The Element

Specification will be corrected for the Final RFP.

DRFP-100 One-on-One For 1:1 Planning, can the Offeror assume that the format will support a dialog with the MDA team to interactively address

MDA issues/questions as they arise during the presentation so that the Offeror can adequately manage the three hour time limit?

As stated in the Draft RFP Notice the Government is interested in gaining Industry feedback on the DRFP.

Therefore most of the time allotted for the one-on-one session involves the Government listening to that feedback.

The Government does intend to ask clarification questions, as needed, after the one-on-one presentation concludes.

DRFP-103 SN-LRDR-ES-

LES-488 appears to be used as a unique identifier twice (see section 3.2.8.4.3 and section 3.2.8.6.3).

LES-488 appears to be used as a unique identifier twice (see section 3.2.8.4.3 and section 3.2.8.6.3).

The LRDR Element Specification will be updated and provided with the final RFP.

DRFP-104 SN-LRDR-ES-

LES-179, LES-488, and LES 489 refer to Table 3-7;

however, reference should be made to Table 3-10 instead.

LES-179, LES-488, and LES 489 refer to Table 3-7;

however, the Offeror believes the reference should be made to Table 3-10 instead.

The LRDR Element Specification will be updated and provided with the final RFP.

DRFP-106 SN-LRDR-ES-

LES-13 requires a process that will accommodate "..up to X meters per second ...", Would the Government confirm that this translates to a spread of +/- X/2 meters per second?

The LRDR Element Specification will be updated and provided with the final RFP.

DRFP-112 SN-LRDR-ES-

Section 2.0 lists the referenced Adversary Capability

Document and BMDS Adversary Data Packages relevant to the Element Specification.

Would the Government provide the Adversary Capability

Document and BMDS Adversary Data Packages referenced in Section 2.0?:

'- Adversary Capability Document Version 6.0, dtd 13

February 2007

- BMDS Adversary Data Package (ADP) for Integrated

Build D (IB-D) Rev A, dtd 25 September 2007

- BMDS ADP for IB-D Addendum 1, European Capability

Revision A, dtd 30 April 2008

- BMDS ADP for IB-D Addendum 2, dtd 5 September 2008

- BMDS ADP for IB-D Addendum 3, dtd 21 September

- BMDS ADP for IB-D Addendum 4, dtd 21 September

- BMDS ADP for IB-D Addendum 5, dtd 27 October 2010

- BMDS ADP for IB-D Addendum 6, dtd 15 February 2011

The documents will be included in the update to the classified Offerors' Library except for some Appendices considered not needed for proposal development.

Addendum 6 to the BMDS ADP for IB-D is not provided since it is available only through the Missile Defense Data

Center (MDDC) by special request. Release of Addendum 6

(or part thereof) will be decided at a later date.

DRFP-120 One-on-One Does the Government intend to treat the Offeror's feedback including any presentation materials as competition sensitive?

All information will be handled in accordance with FAR

3.104.

DRFP-121 One-on-One Is it the Government's intention to have a two-way dialogue with Offeror on the requested feedback provided during the one-on-one session?

As stated in the Draft RFP Notice the Government is interested in gaining Industry feedback on the DRFP.

Therefore most of the time allotted for the one-on-one session involves the Government listening to that feedback.

The Government does intend to ask clarification questions, as needed, after the one-on-one presentation concludes.

DRFP-122 One-on-One Is there any information or presentation that MDA would like to receive in advance of our one-on-one session?

Prior to the planned one-on-one sessions the Government requests a price estimate by Government fiscal year for the following radar configurations at Eareckson Air Station and

Clear Air Force Station, Alaska:

- S-band single face populated

- S-band dual face radar with primary face populated

- S-band dual face with both faces populated