RFP_R1_QAs_01.30.15.pdf

LRDR RFP: HQ0147-14-R-0002

Industry Questions and Answers Round 1

Number Sequence

RFP Section Questions/Comments Responses/Answers

RFP-0001 RFP Can you please confirm the proposal deadline? The Section L-1.7 Submission Due Date will be updated in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0002 RFP Are there missile sites needed on this project? Is there a contact if interested in leasing property?

The Government has no interest in leasing property for this project.

RFP-0003 Exhibit A CDRLs, CDRL A013

CDRL A013 Cyber Incident or Compromise Report. Block 5.

CONTRACT REFERENCE cites SOW, paragraph 3.1.8.2 however SOW paragraph 3.1.7.1 contains the tasking for this report. It is believed that there is a typo and therefore, will the Government reflect SOW paragraph 3.1.7.1 instead of 3.1.8.2 in Block 5 of the CDRL?

Block 5 of CDRL A013 will be changed to cite SOW paragraph

3.1.7.1 in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0004 Section L-1.5 Small Business Sub

Plan

Section L1.5 states "...Offeror's shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan". This section also states that "DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program participants shall comply with DFARS 252.219-7004 and may submit the most current Defense Contract Management Agency approved comprehensive plan."

Would the Government insert "in lieu of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan" at the end of this paragraph?

The DCMA approved "Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan" may be submitted in lieu of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required under section L paragraph 1.5.

RFP-0005 Section L-3.3, L- 3.4.3.2

Section M-4.2.2 states that "the Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed approach for accomplishing the SOW requirements for development of the Integrated Master Schedule."

However Section L-3.3 and L-3.4.3.2 remove the narrative IMS description, leaving only the 2 attachments, which does not allow for the Offeror to explain the SOW requirements .

Would the Government consider allowing an introduction to Tab

2.0 to describe the proposed approach for accomplishing the SOW requirements for development of the Integrated Master Schedule?

Section M-4.2.2 will be revised in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0006 RFP: Pre-Proposal Conference

Can companies other than prime contractors RSVP for this conference?

The conference announcement on FedBizOpps allowed for attendance by all interested Offerors.

RFP-0007 Section L, Para L- 3.4.4.2, Page 43, Lines 1719 to 1728

Draft RFP Section L-3.4.5.4 "Tab 4: Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) (Attachment L-6)" as well as the accompanying Attachment L-6 were deleted from the Final RFP.

The Offeror believes the Government intended to eliminate all requirements pertaining to Past Performance Questionnaires and that lines 1719-1728 of Section L were mistakenly included in the Final RFP.

Would the Government confirm that Section L lines 1719-1728 of the Final RFP are to be deleted?

PPQ's were deleted from the RFP; however, PPI's are still a requirement. RFP section L.3.4.4.2 has been revised for clarity and will be provided in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0008 Section L, pg. 28, Lines 1063-1064;

FRD, Sec. 7.7, pg.

66 LRDR ES,

Appdx A.1 pg. 88

Please clarify the Primary and Secondary Array Boresight Azimuth orientations. This is important given the different Sensitivity requirements for the arrays when conducting the Raid analysis. Request the Government to make the FRD and Section L consistent.

Section L has the correct orientation. The FRD will be updated in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0009 Section L-3.3.2:

Page 22, Lines 808-

Section L-3.3.2: Page 22 "With the exception of the printed Excel Pricing Workbook (EPW), print shall be of a minimum 10-point font size using MS Word Times New Roman. The printed EPW font need only be legible.

In order to ensure legibility, would the Government allow for the use of the Arial font family within graphics, tables, and charts?

Section L-3.3.2 will be updated in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0010 Section L-3.3.2:

Page 22, Lines 808-

Section L-3.3.2: Page 22 "With the exception of the printed Excel Pricing Workbook (EPW), print shall be of a minimum 10-point font size using MS Word Times New Roman. The printed EPW font need only be legible.”

In order to save space, would the Government allow for a minimum type size for graphics, charts, and tables be 8-point?

Type size must be at least 10-point for legibility, with the exception of the Excel Pricing Workbook.

RFP-0011 LRDR Element Spec, Pages 45, 46, and 89; Tables 3- 12, 3-13, and A-3

Tables 3-12, and A-3 both present their times as based on Time After Lift Off (TALO). However, Table 3-13 does not include the term TALO as the time reference .

Request clarification that the time references for Table 3-13 are based on TALO. If not, then please provide the time reference for the values provided.

The time references for Table 3-13 are based on TALO.

RFP-0012 RFP: OCI What is the OCI process?

What is considered additional information in L-1.2 e)?

Refer to Section L, paragraph L-1.2 (Notice Regarding OCI Agreements), Section L paragraph L 3.4.1.6 (Tab 6:

Organizational Conflict of Interest Plan), Section H Clause H-09 (Organizational Conflict of Interest) Paragraphs (e)and (f)(1) and Section J attachment J-15 (MDA OCI Policy) for a complete description of the OCI process. Responsibility lies with the Prime Offerors to ensure that both the Prime Offeror and its proposed subcontractors are not restricted from participating in this proposed acquisition.

Prime Offerors shall submit the requested OCI information via the lrdr_effort@mda.mil.

Proposed subcontractors shall submit the requested information through the Prime Offeror.

In order to expedite the OCI determination, the Prime Offeror may submit additional information to assist the Contracting Officer in the determination of whether a conflict of interest exists (i.e. a letter from the cognizant PCO).

RFP-0013 Exhibit A CDRLs, CDRL A010

CDRL A010 Site Security Management Plan. Block 10.

Frequency states ONE/R. Block 12 establishes the Date of First Submission to be 90 DAC, while Block 13 establishes the Date of Subsequent Submission to also be 90 DAC. We believe the 90 DAC in block 13 to be in error. Would the Government please confirm Block 13 should state "N/A"?

Regarding CDRL A010, Block 10 will be changed to cite 2TIMES and Block 13 will be changed to cite 450 DAC in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0014 Section L Section L requires each Offeror to submit two DVDs copies for each proposal volume and attachment. To ensure that the provided DVDs are readable to the Government, would the Government provide the specific format ("DVD-R" or "DVD+R") to be used on the DVDs?

Either DVD format is acceptable to the Government.

RFP-0015 SOW 3.1.7.1 The text in the SOW paragraph was changed to now state that the “contractor will insure implementation of the NISPOM across their facilities”. It is believed the Government's intent was to write "ensure". Would the Government confirm?

The correct word in the shall statement is "ensure". The SOW paragraph will be updated in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0016 Section L L-3.3 and Attachment B-36 -

L-04

In Section L L-3.3 Proposal Volume Requirements, the Table L-3- 1 Proposal Organization Table specifies numeric entries or "none" only in the Page Limit column for the Vol II Tab 1A Attachment 1: LRDR Performance Metrics section.

The table in Attachment L-04 [B36] specifies data entries need to be provided for Objects 1-N; [e.g., in the tab Single threat scenario #2].

Can the Offeror also provide the Object Type under the column heading "Object #" to clarify the relationship between object number and type? Would the Government allow the Offeror to provide a "Notes" section at the end of each table to provide insight into the data entries in the table?

For scenarios that have more than one object, the Offeror may use the last part of the trajectory filename in the 'Object #' column to identify the object. For the purpose of a naming example only, if scenario #20 has an object trajectory file named:

'...SSP_Threat20_RB6.asc', the Offeror may use the identifier 'RB6' on the appropriate line in the Object ID column.

Offeror notes are not allowed in Attachment L-04.

RFP-0017 Attachment B-36 - L-04

The table in Attachment L-04 [B36], LRDR Performance Metrics section, contains an Acquisition column heading with an entry of Duty Cycle and Occupancy [e.g., in the tab Single threat scenario #2].

For fixed search, does the Acquisition Duty and Occupancy provided in Attachment L-04 describe the steady state search process or the search plus early track processes consistent with the definition of Acquisition provided in the glossary of the Element Specification? If the latter, would the Government provide its definition of the process to be included in the accounting and the time period over which resource averaging should be performed?

The Acquisition Duty Cycle and Occupancy provided in Attachment L-04 solely describes the steady state search process.

RFP-0018 Attachment B-36 - L-04

The table in Attachment L-04 [B36], LRDR Performance Metrics section, contains an Acquisition column heading with an entry of Object # [e.g., in the tab Single threat scenario #2].

In attachment L-04 the Offeror is to provide the number of objects acquired and the acquisition time. Will the Government provide its definition for the acquisition time that should be provided when the acquisition times are not the same for all objects?

In the Single Threat Scenario metric tables, there is one data row per object for which data is collected. For the Raid Scenario metric tables, there is one data row per principal object (as defined in the Element Specification). Each object may have a different acquisition time. Acquisition time is based on TALO. Attachment L-04 will be updated for clarity in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0019 Attachment B-36 - L-04

The table in Attachment L-04 [B36], LRDR Performance Metrics section, contains an Acquisition column heading with an entry of Duty Cycle and Occupancy [e.g., in the tab Single threat scenario #2].

In attachment L-04 the Offeror is to provide the Duty Cycle and Occupancy for cued search. Will the Government provide it's definition for the time period over which these values should be averaged?

Attachment L-04 will be updated for clarity in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0020 Section L 3.4.2.1.3 Tab 1C

In a previously answered question (DRFP-048, Round 6, 15 October 2014), it states, “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.”

We understand that the RAM-T Program Plan is not delivered with the proposal per the revised Blocks 12 and 13 of CDRL A048. However, the RAM-T portion of Section L (3.4.2.1.3 Tab 1C) requires a RAM-T Program Plan Summary with no associated page limit. Is the RAM-T Program Plan Summary subject to the page count of Section 3.4.2.1.3 or does the Government intend to specify a different limit and define an attachment number for the RAM-T Program Plan Summary?

The page limit for this section is defined in Section L. The summary RAM-T Program Plan is to be included in the Section L-

3.4.2.1.3 Tab 1C page count.

RFP-0021 B07 - J-02

Facilities

Requirements Document B32 -

Section L

Please reconcile the difference in orientations of the Primary Face and Secondary Face between the FRD and Section L for the purpose of the analyses required in the proposal.

Section L has the correct orientation. The FRD will be updated in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0022 SOW 3.4.2.1 HW

PMAP category D requirement

SOW para 3.4.2.1 states "All parts, materials, and processes selections shall be processed in accordance with the MDA PMAP to hardware category D requirements." SOW Para 3.13.2 states "All parts, materials and processes selections shall be processed in accordance with the MDA PMAP to hardware category D requirements for external hardware and MDA PMAP category E requirements for hardware in environmentally-controlled locations." Will the MDA modify SOW para 3.4.2.1 to allow MDA PMAP category E hardware in environmentally controlled locations?

SOW Section 3.4 applies to the O&S CLINs 5000 and 6000.

SOW Para 3.4.2.1 is correctly stated. The reference bullet to hardware category requirements in SOW Para 3.13.2 and Para

3.15.2 will be removed in a forthcoming amendment.

RFP-0023 B32 - Section L Lines 1408-1410 (Tab 2A) ask for Software Configuration Items (SCI) Software Lines of Code (SLOC) counts to be indicated as "new, re-factored, re-hosted, or re-used without modification."

Lines 2169-2172 (BOEs) ask for "new, modified, reuse." We recommend that Tab 2A be changed to "new, modified, reuse" to be consistent with BOEs.

Correct terminology is new, modified, reused, and auto-generated.

Section L (Lines 1409-1410 and Lines 2169-2170) and SOW Section 3.6.2 will be updated to reflect the correct terminology in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0024 RFP The Final RFP Package contains significant changes in the Instructions to Offerors (Section L), the Evaluation Criteria (Section M), and changes to the LRDR Statement of Work (e.g.

additional scope on 3.5 Logistics). This includes significant changes in Volume II (over 50% of Section L), changes in the other 2 Non-Price Evaluation Factor volumes (both new and re-arranged). Scope changes including the addition of new options and new funding constraint has required changes to RFQ/RFP and quotes from teammates and suppliers within the current delivery date. Based upon the magnitude of these changes, the Offeror requests the Government grant a 30 day extension to the proposal delivery date. Additionally, request the Government also delay delivery of the Past Performance Volume to 15 days prior to the new delivery date. Based upon the information provided at the Pre- Proposal Conference, additional time may be requested.

The Section L-1.7 Submission Due Date will be updated in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0025 Pre-Proposal Conference

Would the Government allow for the Pre-Proposal Conference scheduled for 21 January 2015 to become a CVTC session?

Due to the nature of the conference, a CVTC was not feasible.

RFP-0026 Section L-3.4.5.2 The time phased funding budget cited in Section L-3.4.5.2 is not commensurate with the material acquisition timeline required for the LRDR Program. Will MDA adjust the RFP requirements to provide adequate alignment?

The funding amounts will remain as they appear in L-3.4.5.2.

However, note that the delivery date requirements have been revised in Section F and will be provided in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0027 Section L-3.4.5.2 Will MDA provide the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) for the LRDR Program?

The Government will not make the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) available to Offerors.

RFP-0028 Attachment J-02 Facilities

Requirements Document (FRD), Section 11.1

The MILCON availability dates cited in the FRD, Section 11.1 does not allow adequate time for Radar construction, installation, integration and robust test (only 20 months from foundation availability to DD250 acceptance), especially in light of the FAR 52.211-11 "Liquidated Damages" clause cited in Section I. Will MDA accelerate the MILCON schedule to allow for adequate alignment and reduced risk to the scheduled DD250 event?

The MILCON availability dates will not be changed.

RFP-0029 SOW 3.9 Please confirm if the LRDR contractor or the MILCON contractor is responsible for the construction of LRDR Equipment Shelter (LES) under separate contract. If the contractor is responsible is responsible for the construction of LRDR Equipment Shelter (LES), which CLIN is to include the construction costs?

The LRDR contractor is responsible for the design and assembly of the LRDR Equipment Shelter (LES) under CLIN 0001.

RFP-0030 Attachment L-3 Second Paragraph;

Section L-3.4.2.1.4

Given that DFAR 252.227-7015 applies solely to Technical Data in Commercial Items, and not computer software or computer software documentation. Would the Government revise the second paragraph in Attachment L-3 to remove any reference to computer software and computer software documentation.

Suggest the paragraph to read as follows: "In accordance with contract clause 252.227-7015 the Contractor grants or shall obtain for the Government royalty free, world-wide, nonexclusive, irrevocable rights as set forth in 252.227-7015(b)(1) in commercial technical data." In addition, Subsection 2 of Section L-

3.4.2.1.4 pertains to Computer Technical Data, Commercial Computer Software and Commercial Computer Software Documentation. DFAR 252.227-7015 pertains to Technical Data in Commercial Items, which does not include commercial computer software or documentation. Commercial computer software and documentation is instead covered under DFARS

227.7202 et seq. Would the Government remove any reference to Commercial Computer Software and Documentation from this paragraph?

The Government has considered this particular issue and has determined that the existing language will remain unchanged.

RFP-0031 SOW 3.4.9.4 Page

"Production Readiness Reviews... will include affirmative answers to the following exit questions: 9. Is detail design complete and stable enough to enter low rate production? 12. Have all producibility trade studies and risk assessments been completed?"

Since LRDR is not currently planned to be a LRIP contract, would the Government please clarify or strike question #9?

Given producibility trade studies are not required under the SOW, as provided in the DRFP; please clarify the Government’s expectations on producibility trade studies and risk assessments.

The Government has reviewed this section and determined that Production Readiness Review exit questions 9 and 12 are appropriate to retain in the SOW.

RFP-0032 Model Contract Section J

Attachment J-02A, "Government Furnished Information (GFI) Compliance" and Attachment J-02B, "Government Furnished Information (GFI) Reference" are provided as attachments under Section J of the Model Contract. FAR 52.215-8(d), Order of Precedence, states that Other documents, exhibits, and attachments have equal order of precedence. Therefore, all J-02A and J-02B are of equal precedence. Would the Government Confirm that the SOW and Element Spec take precedence over the J-2B ‘reference’ documents?

FAR clause 52.215-8 should be read together with FAR Part 15;

15.204 in particular. The clause should be interpreted as intended by the FAR.

RFP-0033 Model Contract Section I

It is understood as part of the Government's DRFP #023 response that DFARS 252.227-7020 "Rights in Special Works" remains as

is. Given this, would the Government specify what 252.227-7020 would apply to which is different than 252.227-7013, -7014 and - 7015?

The process stated in Section L-2.5 will be utilized in the event specific items need to be identified.

RFP-0034 Model Contract Section I

Given that FAR 52.227-11 was deleted from the Final RFP and DFAR 252.227-7039 only applies when FAR 52.227-11 is included. Would the Government delete 252.227-7039?

Section I will be updated to add FAR Clause 52.227-11 in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0035 RFP Section M- 4.1.1.4

Section M, Lines 266-270 states, "In the event an Offeror proposes to deliver any commercial or noncommercial Technical Data/Computer Software/Computer Software Documentation (TD/CS/CSD) with less than GPR, the Government will evaluate the impact on the Government’s ability to use, modify, release, or disclose such TD, CS, or CSD." Providing the equivalent of GPR, for example, would allow the Government to distribute Microsoft Office software to multiple workstations without procuring the necessary license, so long as doing so was done for a Government (and not commercial purpose). Providers of commercial TD, CS, and CSD will most likely be unwilling to provide their products under those circumstances. Since commercial suppliers will be understandingly reluctant or refuse to part with extensive rights in their technical data and computer software, as it appears to be required by Section M of the RFP. Please delete the application of the evaluation factor of this part of Section M to commercial items.

The Government has considered this particular issue and has determined that the existing language will remain unchanged.

RFP-0036 Section L-3.4.3.1.1 Section L-3.4.5

Section L-3.4.5 provides a definition of "major" and "minor" subcontractors. Section L-3.4.3.1.1 requires a description of "company and/or subcontractor facilities". Would the Government consider amending Section L-3.4.3.1.1 to require a description of "company and/or major subcontractor facilities"?

Section L-3.4.3.1.1 will be updated to state "company and/or major subcontractor facilities" in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0037 'Section C SOW paragraph 3.5.3.5;

ATT- J-04-85 ADP

List

The SOW states that "The MTA shall be reviewed and updated annually." The ADP cites an initial delivery at PDR with a revision & submission 60 days prior to CDR. Since the frequency impacts the offer, the Offeror requests that the Government clarify the frequency of updates that is required for this effort.

The MTA updates will occur annually during the O&S period(s), after DD250. Prior to DD250, there are two deliveries as required by the ADP. SOW Section 3.5.3.5 will be updated in a forthcoming RFP amendment to clarify delivery requirements.

RFP-0038 FRD Section 15 Page 95 Figure

15.3

In Section 15, Figure 15.3 identifies electrical room 5, mechanical rooms 7, 8, 9 and 14, along with substations 11 and 12. How many square feet, in each mechanical and electrical room, will be allocated for use to the Radar Prime in order to install equipment?

The mechanical and electrical rooms will be designed through the Facilities Requirements Review and 35/65/95% Facilities Design Reviews. The Offeror may assume interface locations convenient to equipment placement (such as pumps and heat exchangers).

RFP-0039 FRD Section 7.9.1 Page 66 Paragraph

There is a requirement in section 7.9.1 for a conditioned and unshielded antenna equipment room below roof level in support of antennas. What size room and overhead height will be required for the Antenna Equipment Room?

This requirement allows the Government to mount panels on the walls of a conditioned (heated and ventilated) room for the Land Mobile Radio (LMR) antennas. The panels will need to be in close proximity to 120V power (breakers to be determined in design process). The antenna equipment room will be designed through the Facilities Requirements Review and 35/65/95% Facilities Design Reviews.

RFP-0040 FRD Section 15 Page 93,94 Figure

15.1 & 15.2

It is appears from inspection of Figures 15.1 and 15.2, the groundwater cooling wells enters the MCF at mechanical room 7.

What is the actual mechanical room in the MCF where the MILCON install the groundwater cooling water connections?

The mechanical and electrical rooms will be designed through the Facilities Requirements Review and 35/65/95% Facilities Design Reviews. The Offeror may assume interface locations convenient to equipment placement (such as pumps and heat exchangers).

RFP-0041 FRD Section 7.7 Page 66 Paragraph

There is a requirement that anchors rods be a minimum of 6 inches and a maximum length 7 inches exposed after concrete is poured.

Can the maximum length of the anchor bolts exceed the 7 inches if the equipment foundation base plates exceed 7 inches?

The FRD will be updated in a forthcoming RFP amendment to allow for anchor bolt design and placement that accommodates the LES design and assembly.

RFP-0042 FRD Section 8.1.4 Page 68 Paragraph

One buried 150mm (6 inch) Rigid Steel Conduit, shall(136) be provided interconnecting the amplifier assemblies and the NFA, originating at the MCF foundation. Radar System Interconnecting cable will be furnished by the contractor. Is FRD Section 8.1.4 referring to the MILCON contractor?

The MILCON contractor will prepare the buried, Rigid Steel Conduits which originate at the MCF and terminate at the test antenna foundations. The radar prime contractor shall design, furnish, install, and terminate the interconnection cables in accordance with the electrical requirements of their equipment.

FRD Section 8.1.4 will be updated in a forthcoming RFP amendment to clarify contractor responsibility.

RFP-0043 FRD Section 7.9.1 Page 66 Paragraph

Per Section 7.1.1, 7.9.1, and 12.13.2 bi-directional arrays may be required on the roof of the LES to accommodate station systems for radio communications outside the HEMP shield. In section

7.9.1 there is a requirement for the radar prime to provide curbs on the roof to support antenna structures. What is the size, weight, power, cable, waveguide and foundation requirements associated with these antennas?

The antennas will be typical Land Mobile Radio (LMR) antennas.

Exact characteristics and quantities will be identified through the facilities design process. The Offeror may assume 3' antennas with a small mounting curb and HEMP Shield penetration. The FRD will be updated in a forthcoming RFP amendment to clarify the antenna requirements.

RFP-0044 RFP The draft Element Specification Version 0.1 dated 1 August 2014 contained a requirement for threshold sensitivity for the primary array with design requirements for future growth in sensitivity and operations for both array faces. The final RFP specifies threshold sensitivities for both array faces. The funding profile contained in Section L is consistent with the draft Element Specification. Please confirm the alignment between the final RFP SOW and Element Specification requirements and Section L instructions regarding available funding.

The funding amounts will remain as they appear in L-3.4.5.2.

RFP-0045 Sections L-3.4.2.1, L-3.4.5.2, and I

FAR 52.211-11

The overall budget cited in Section L-3.4.5.2 is not commensurate with the element specification requirements in L-3.4.2.1 and the Liquidated Damages clause in Section I. How will MDA handle a proposal that does not meet the budget or the threshold requirements?

A proposal that does not meet threshold requirements, or is evaluated to require funding in excess of the cumulative funding established in L-3.4.5.2, may still be evaluated. However, this criteria must be met for an Offeror to be eligible for award.

RFP-0046 Section L-1.7 Unexpected items have surfaced in review of the final RFP relative to the draft RFP that require additional coordination with Suppliers. In order to allow Offerors additional time to coordinate with Suppliers, will MDA consider extending the three proposal submission dates cited in Section L-1.7 by thirty (30) calendar days?

The Section L-1.7 Submission Due Date will be updated in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0047 ES Per the Element Spec, it is a requirement for the LRDR Equipment Shelter to be sized to accommodate Future Growth without structural modification. Would the Government confirm this requirement is correct?

The Government confirms that the LRDR Equipment Shelter is to be sized to accommodate Future Growth without structural modification.

RFP-0048 Section L-3.4.4.2 Please clarify the procedure for submitting Past Performance Information (PPI) sheets to the Government. Section L-3.4.4.2 requires the Offeror to submit PPI sheets as part of its Past Performance Volume, but then also requires the Offeror to instruct the designated PPI POCs “to send the completed PPI sheet to the Government with the Past Performance Volume.” Because the Offeror – and not the PPI POC – will submit the Past Performance Volume, the latter requirement appears literally impossible to fulfill. Moreover, the prescribed PPI sheet provides no space or instruction for comment by POCs. Based on there being no space or instructions within Attachment L-5 for POC’s to comment, and based also on the fourth paragraph of L-3.4.4.2, which states “The Offeror shall include current and accurate information for at least two (2) points of contact (POC) for each contract and/or subcontract listed on a PPI sheet”, is it the Government’s intention to independently verify with the listed POC’s the information provided by the Offeror in its completed PPI Sheets submitted with the Past Performance volume? Please clarify, as the first four paragraphs of L-3.4.4.2 appear to conflict with the direction of the last two paragraphs of L-3.4.4.2.

The Offeror shall submit completed PPI Sheets to the Government with the Past Performance Volume. Section L-3.4.4.2 will be revised for clarity in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0049 Attachment L-5 Section 15 and 16 of the L-5 Attachment 'PPI Sheet' state "Additional page(s) may be inserted, as needed." The tab within the past performance volume is limited to 40 pages. Each PPI template is 3 pages before text is added. Does the direction to add additional page(s) as needed mean each PPI sheet can expand to additional pages, as text is added, up to the 40 page limit for this section, or are the additional pages allowed over and above the 40 page limit?

Section L, Table L-3-1, Volume IV Past Performance, Tab 2, Past Performance Information, the page count will be increased, and a revised Attachment L-5 will be provided, in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0050 Section L-3.4.2.3.2 3.4.2.3.2 states that "The Offeror shall provide a risk mitigation plan to achieve MRL 7 by CDR for any item that is currently assessed below a MRL of 8". This appears to be a typo. We believe this section should specify "any item that is currently assessed below a MRL of 7". Please confirm.

Section L-3.4.2.3.2 will be updated in a forthcoming RFP amendment to indicate MRL of 7.

RFP-0051 B07 - J-02

Facilities

Requirements Document

B07-J-02, FRD pages 43,44,45, Table 5.1 MCF Room Index & Floor Areas. Table info is cut off after item 43. No info for items 44-62 or summary info. Looks like a cut/paste error when the table was formatted for pdf. Please provide all Table 5.1 values.

The FRD Table 5.1 will be updated in a forthcoming amendment.

RFP-0052 SOW 3.1.4.2 and B18-J-13

The SOW section 3.1.4.2 states that the CWBS (CDRL A004) is to be 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. The Government's answer to Draft RFP (DRFP) Question DRFP-219 stated "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". Please confirm this approach remains acceptable.

The requirement exists for the contractor to prepare and submit a compliant CWBS IAW MIL-STD 881C, acceptable to the Government, within 60 days post contract award.

RFP-0053 Section L-3.4.6.6 Note 7

Note 7 states that spares analysis should be for LRDR in Fully Mission Capable status for a 4 year period. Section L paragraph

3.4.2.1.3 defines a scenario with 8 hours max duty, 8 hours idle operational state and 8 hours non radiating state. What operational hours should be assumed for the purpose of addressing Note 7?

The 24-hour operation as defined in Section L paragraph 3.4.2.1.3 applies.

RFP-0054 SOW 3.15, CLIN

6000 O&S Period 2

If 24-hour operation is not intended for CLIN 6000, please specify the operational hours which should be used.

The 24-hour operation as defined in Section L paragraph 3.4.2.1.3 applies.

RFP-0055 B26 - J-21 MDA

Assurance

Provisions (MAP)

Paragraphs 3.3.3.5, Independent Verification and Validation & 3.14.6.2, Range Safety are coded as "Y" for Applicability. Should these paragraphs be coded as "N"?

MAP Para 3.3.3.5 is correctly coded 'Y' and applicable to the Government selected IV&V organization.

MAP Para 3.14.6.2 is correctly coded 'Y' and applicable to AF Range Safety requirements when testing and operating the radar system.

RFP-0056 B06 - J-01 SOW /

B26 - J-21 MDA

Assurance Provisions (MAP)

The MAP (B26) Section 3.5.15 states the Environmental Stress Screening (ESS), "as a minimum, power-on and performance monitoring shall be performed at two levels of assembly". The SOW (B06) Section 3.4.4.14 requires ESS "at the lowest level possible" and allows the contractor to "define hardware indenture level of ESS, selected environmental profiles and rationale, power on/off application, and metrics to be used for evaluating ESS effectiveness". These separately defined ESS requirements of the MAP and the SOW seem to be in conflict. Is it the Government's intent that ESS be performed "as a minimum, power-on and performance monitoring shall be performed at two levels of assembly"? If not, please clarify the requirement.

ESS shall be performed in accordance with the SOW.

RFP-0057 B03 - Exhibit A

CDRL / B04 -

Exhibit B DIDs

CDRLs A030, A032 and A035, Block 4, call out DI-SDMP- 81465A/T; however the B04 Attachment only contains DI-SDMP- 81465A. Should the CDRLs reference DI-SDMP-81465A?

When Block 4 indicates a "/T", the tailoring language is provided in Block 16. The Offeror should apply the Block 16 tailoring language to the reference DID.

RFP-0058 B03 - Exhibit A

CDRL / B04 -

Exhibit B DIDs

There are a number of CDRLs that have "/T" specified after the applicable DID which are not provided in the B04 DID's. If it is the intent of the Government to tailor the DID (common usage of the "/T" after the DID Identification Number"), please provide the tailored DID.

When Block 4 indicates a "/T", the tailoring language is provided in Block 16. The Offeror should apply the Block 16 tailoring language to the reference DID.

RFP-0059 Section B The Quantity and Unit of Measure for CLIN 6000 is shown as "3 Lot". We believe the intention for this O&S Period 2 CPIF CLIN is "1 Lot". Please confirm.

The quantity shown in Section B for CLIN 6000 will be updated to read '1 Lot' in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0060 Section 3.2.5.3.2 Element

Specification

The velocity error in Section 3.2.5.3.2 LRDR-2388, is an order of magnitude greater than the velocity error in Section 3.2.9, Table 3-

13. Is the velocity error in LRDR-2388 correct?

The Element Specification is correct as written. The velocity errors represent different times in the trajectory, with different mixes of off-board sensors feeding the cue quality.

RFP-0061 RFP Attachment J-

02, FRD

FRD Paragraphs 7.1.1, 7.9.1 and 12.13.2 reference "Bi-directional antennas" to potentially be emplaced on the roof of the LES.

Please provide sizing and weight information to support LES cost estimates as well as frequency and purpose information to support estimation of E3 and functional integration effort.

The antennas will be typical Land Mobile Radio (LMR) antennas.

Exact characteristics and quantities will be identified through the facilities design process. The Offeror may assume 3' antennas with a small mounting curb and HEMP Shield penetration. The FRD will be updated in a forthcoming RFP amendment to clarify the antenna requirements.

RFP-0062 Section I, FAR 52.211-11, Liquidated Damages -

Supplies, Services or Research and

Development (SEP 2000)

The liquidated damages provision of the RFP confirms the importance MDA is placing on schedule. FAR 11.5, in pertinent part, requires liquidated damages reflect probable damages, not be punitive and reflect a reasonable forecast of just compensation for the harm caused by late delivery or untimely performance. Given the imposition of a mandated fee structure, might the Government consider a reduced incremental value and/or the inclusion of a maximum limitation on damages?

The Government has considered the request and has determined that the RFP will not be changed.

Rd 1 RFP Qs&As