RFP_R3_QAs_02.27.15.pdf

LRDR RFP: HQ0147‐14‐R‐0002

Industry Questions and Answers Round 3

Number Sequence

RFP Section Questions/Comments Responses/Answers

RFP-0096 B08 - J03 Base Support Requirements List, paragraph

2.16 and 2.18

Para 2.16.a (page 7) states that the mancamp will be removed "probably in 2020." 1. In order for the contractor to plan, will the Government please provide a mancamp closure date that is tied to a program milestone, such as the end of CLIN 6000? 2. Will the Government consider an on-base housing arrangement, such as a third party support agreement, after the mancamp closes, for personnel supporting O&S CLINs? Without base housing or a mancamp, bidders for O&S CLINs will be scrambling to find local accommodations, and the lack of local accommodations will drive cost up.

The Offeror may assume that the government will continue to provide mancamp or other similar solution for lodging as described in J-03 through the end of the CLIN 6000 period of performance.

RFP-0097 FRD para 3.13.5, Table 3.1, Figure 15.10

FRD 3.13.5 describes an Ethernet (TCP/IP) LAN with fiber optic transmission media. Table 3-1 mentions a "Security VLAN," but neither the acronym nor the system are defined.

1. Please define and describe VLAN.

2. Is an unclassified wireless network permitted in the MCF and LES?

The VLAN is a Virtual Local Area Network. The network configuration will allow for individual IP addresses for the system. The Radar Prime interface for network configuration will be coordinated through the facilities design process. An unclassified wireless network is not permitted in the MCF and

LES.

RFP-0098 Section L-

3.4.1.2 POC

List & Model Contract K-05

Would the Government please confirm that the required subcontractor POC Lists and K-05 information are only required for Major Suppliers as defined under Section L-3.4.4

The information identified under paragraph d of provision K-05 is required for any first tier subcontractor. The Subcontractor POC list to be submitted as Tab 2 specified under L-3.4.1.2 is only required for subcontractors/suppliers who contribute $25M or more to the prime offeror's effort.

RFP-0099 J-01 SOW / J-

21 MDA

Assurance Provisions

(MAP)

Please clarify an ambiguity in the way in which the SOW specifies the level at which ESS must be performed. The USG's response to RFP-0056 states, "ESS shall be performed in accordance with the SOW." The SOW (J-01) §3.4.4.14 requires ESS "at the lowest level possible" and directs the contractor to prepare a detailed ESS/HASS Program Plan that "defines hardware indenture level of ESS, selected environmental profiles and rationale, power on/off application, and metrics to be used for evaluating ESS effectiveness". SOW §3.4.4.14 can be interpreted as giving the contractor wide latitude to define an effective ESS/HASS program that simultaneously performs ESS "at the lowest level possible" and meets other program constraints (e.g., RAM-T requirements, program cost, and program schedule). In the limit, this paragraph permits the contractor to provide a single level of ESS "at the lowest level possible".

The SOW (J-01) §3.4.1 states further, "Quality provisions for each CLIN shall comply with MDA-QS-001-MAP Rev B (MAP) dated 13-Jun-14 (as tailored by the Government-provided LRDR Requirements Applicability Matrix Appendix A.2 of Attachment J-21)." The Government-provided LRDR Requirements Applicability Matrix (Appendix A.2 of Attachment J-21) contains a "Y" in the "Appl (Y/N/M)" column for §3.5.15, where "Y" is defined to be "MAP paragraph applies". The MAP (J-21) §3.5.15 states that Environmental Stress Screening (ESS), "as a minimum, power-on and performance monitoring shall be performed at two levels of assembly".

We assume that the SOW (J-01) and MAP (J-21), each of which are RFP Attachments, are at the same level of precedence., and that because the SOW invokes the MAP, both requirements must be met simultaneously.

Please confirm that single-level ESS "at the lowest level possible" is required in accordance with the SOW §3.4.4.14, and accordingly, confirmation that the MAP RAM should be modified to "N" or "M" in order for the MAP RAM requirement to be tailored for consistently with the SOW language.

Two-level ESS is required per the MAP, one of the two assembly levels being at the lowest level possible per the SOW.

RFP-0100 B06 - J-01

SOW, Section 3.6

SOW Section 3.6 states All software shall be considered safety and mission critical. Please confirm that mission and safety critical applies only to the system's tactical software as specified in SOW 3.6.

SOW Section 3.6 software shall be considered safety and mission critical.

RFP-0101 Section H, DACX/JAN201

5 FRD JOD

Section H, Clause DACX/JAN 2015 - FRD JOD, paragraph a. of the amended RFP states "The Contracting Officer may at any time, by written order, and without notice to the sureties, if any, make changes the Joint Occupancy Dates (JODs) specified in the LRDR Facilities Requirements Document (FRD) Section 11.1. Paragraph b. states "A JOD window is defined as a period of time 45 days before or after the JODs contained in the LRDR FRD Section 11.1 (Attachment J-02)". Is it correct to interpret, in consonance with FAR 52.211-11(c), that any directed acceleration of a JOD date, even if within the 45-day plus or minus JOD Window defined in paragraph b. of this clause, will not result in, or be construed to make a change, to the 58-month Section F DD-250 date for CLIN 0001, given the imposition of a daily liquidated damages amount applicable to late delivery of the CLIN 0001 LRDR?

The acceleration of a JOD suggests that the entity performing the radar contract would have a greater opportunity to complete the various efforts associated with that particular JOD. However, this is only an assumption as the entirety of the particular facts surrounding the acceleration are not known.

RFP-0102 Section H, DACX/JAN201

5 FRD JOD

Section H, clause DACX/JAN 2015 - FRD JOD, paragraph b. states "A JOD window is defined as a period of time 45 days before or after the JODs contained in the LRDR FRD Section 11.1 (Attachment J-02) Paragraph c. states "The movement of a JOD within a JOD Window will not be subject to an equitable adjustment to the Total Contract Price". Based on the language of this clause, the Offeror recognizes that any impact to the cost or price of CLIN 0001, in the event of a directed acceleration or delay in the JOD date within the JOD Window, as defined, will not be subject to an equitable adjustment to the contract price; however, in reviewing the sensitivity of the program IMS to changes in the FRD JOD-01 and/or JOD-02 dates, it is apparent that any directed delay of the FRD Section

11.1 JOD dates by 45 days has the potential, based on the timing of any such directed delay, to disrupt the installation of the LRDR Equipment Shelter (LES), due to the weather-driven inherent constraints of the Alaskan building season, and thereby increasing the risk of completing on-site integration and Government acceptance of the CLIN 0001 deliverable by the contractually required 58 months ADC. Based on the foregoing potential impacts to on-schedule Government acceptance of the CLIN 0001 LRDR, and which delay in delivery, absent any other factors, would be directly attributable to a Government-directed delay in either the JOD-1 or JOD-2 FRD Section

11.1 specified dates which have been used for IMS purposes, please confirm: 1) That the imposition of liquidated damages shall not occur in the event any such Government-directed delay in the FRD JODs pursuant to this clause causes a delay in contractor completion and/or Government acceptance of CLIN 0001, and 2) That an equitable adjustment to the CLIN 0001 Section F delivery schedule shall be made, as warranted, based on the extent of any IMS/schedule impact directly resulting from a Government-directed JOD delay.

The manner in which contract clauses 52.211-11 and 52.243-1 Alternative V are administered is dependent upon the totality of facts realized during contract execution; therefore, confirmation of a particular outcome based on a limited number of facts would be speculation.

RFP-0103 L-3.4.3.4 Will failure to meet the small business goals as shown in Table L-3.4.3.4-1 in one of more subcategories be considered a weakness, significant weakness, or deficiency?

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's Small Business Participation and Commitment Plan. As part of the evaluation for this sub-factor, the Government will consider each Offeror's commitment to use small businesses in terms of the type of work to be performed, the extent to which small businesses are named in the proposal; and whether documented commitments are demonstrated in their proposal.

The identification of a weakness, significant weakness or deficiency (as defined in Table M-3-2) associated with a particular Offeror's proposal will be made during the evaluation process.

RFP-0104 Section L, L- 3.4.2.1.1, Tab 1A, Attachment 1, Lines 1067-

Under Tab 1A, Attachment 1, the RFP requires the Offeror to populate the metric worksheets in the format provided in Attachment L-04 for each single-threat scenario identified in Attachment L-04 and for the raid scenarios described in lines 1075-1078 in the format provided in Attachment L-04 and provide as Vol II Tab 1A Attachment 1. In the most recent Amendment, Attachment L-04 also increased the data rows required by adding in min, max and mean values as well as data provided to be to 2 decimal places. Using the proscribed worksheet in L- 04, the metrics data for the required scenarios and number of objects cannot be printed in the required page count

(50) at the required minimum font size. While not finalized, the estimated page count is in excess of 100 pages.

Question: Request the Government confirm that Tab 1A, Attachment 1 does not have a page count limit. Further request the Government consider an electronic file only to be submitted for this attachment, not a printed copy.

Volume II Tab 1A, Attachment 1 will not have a page count limit. Printed copies per Section L are required. Section L will be updated in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0105 Section L- 3.4.5.6(B)

Would the Government confirm that written approval from the holding Contracting Officer is not required for the GFE/GFP items listed under the Government provided Attachment J-06?

Written approval from the holding Contracting Officer is not required for the Government listed GFE/GFP items contained in Section J Attachment J-06.

Section L will be updated in a forthcoming RFP amendment.

RFP-0106 Section L-1.8 Given the proposal extension provided on January 30th, would the Government also extend the notification date under Section L-1.8 from February 9th to February 26th?

Section L-1.8 notification date will not be extended.

RFP-0107 Section L-3.3 Section L-3.3 requires that Vol II Tab 1A Attachment 1: LRDR Performance Metrics is limited to 50 pages of numeric entries or none only. Section L-3.4.2.1.1 (line 1071) requires that worksheets be populated in the format of the L-04 attachment. The L-04 attachment requires that data be provided for all objects, regardless of visibility (due to SNR or Field of View). Given 1) the large number of objects across the 12 different scenarios required, 2) the size 10 font size restriction for graphics, 3) the format of the tables provided in attachment L-04 and the data requested, it is not possible to provide the Performance Metrics within the 50 page count limit and be compliant with all of the other conditions. In addition, with the Government supplied format and font size restriction for these tables, all of the columns of the table cannot fit on a 17 inch wide page, resulting in rows be split across pages, which would make this section difficult for the Government to review. We recommend that the Government allow these two attachments to have unlimited page count and request that the Government allow size 8 font for these tables for fold-out pagination purposes.

Volume II Tab 1A, Attachment 1 will not have a page count limit. Minimum font size shall remain 10. Section L will be updated in a forthcoming RFP amendment.