BMD_Systems_Engineering_QA_Responses_-_Final_1_Aug_16.pdf

BMD Systems Engineering – Questions from Industry (14 Jul 16) HQ0147-16-R-0009

# RFP Section / Paragraph / Attachment Reference RFP Language Question / Comment Response

1 Section L-4.4 Table L-1

Due to the extensive number of requirements (PWS is 95 pages long with over 750 products and over 450 Task/Subtasks requirements), would the Government consider increasing the page count of the Technical Volume, Tab 1:

Technical Approach to 85 pages?

Page count for Technical Volume, Tab 1:

Technical Approach will be increased to 75 pages.

Section L BMD Systems Engineering 6.28.16

Section L.13-5 Paragraph 10

Provide the Basis of Estimate (BOE) for all resources proposed. This paragraph states “Offerors shall describe their approach for providing products and services. The result will be a narrative of BOEs. Each of these narratives must explain the following: proposed labor, the methodology for developing the BOE, the skill mix required, and key ground rules and assumptions. A little later it states “The details in the BOE need to be sufficient for the technical evaluator to understand the rationale used, the source of the underlying data, the detailed calculations involved, and the basis for any complexity factors. The detail needs to be sufficient to determine the validity of the approach and the estimate”.

Section M 9.0 fails to provide evaluation criteria concerning

Is it the government’s intent to have the proposal technical volume evaluators evaluate the BOE Narratives in the Pricing Volume?

What evaluation criteria will be used to evaluate the BOE Narratives?

Will the evaluation of the BOE Narratives be used by the technical evaluators to develop strengths and weaknesses in support of, or against, the offeror’s Technical Volume?

a. Yes, technical evaluators will be able to review the BOE in addition to the Technical Volume.

b. Evaluation Criteria specified in Section M

c. Technical evaluators will review the offeror’s proposal and determine strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and assign color/risk ratings IAW section M.

the BOEs or BOE Narratives. Please provide clarification for the following questions:

Section L BMD Systems Engineering 6.28.16

Section L-13.3, Paragraph 3, Also, reference Attachment L-

07 Excel Pricing Workbook Rates tab.

"The tool chosen to perform direct labor cost analysis is the Economic Research Institute (ERI) Salary Assessor." The RFP provides rationale for the use of ERI data. The ERI rates are provided in section L-07 Excel Pricing Workbook on the Rates Tab.

Within ERI, data can be pulled to reflect hourly base rates or hourly total compensation. Hourly base rates reflect what other individuals in the market are making as a base rate while hourly total compensation includes all forms of paid variable cash, bonus, and incentive. In referencing the ERI benchmark titles with the ERI database and identifying the appropriate experience level, it appears the data provided is based on hourly total compensation for all labor categories and all locations. Please confirm if the data we have represents hourly base rate or hourly total compensation. If it represents hourly total compensation, would the Government consider using hourly base rates? We believe that the hourly base rate represents a more consistent benchmark.

The ERI Data provided is for direct labor cost analysis only, it does not include indirect costs. Sec L-13.4 Excel Pricing Workbook (EPW) Attachment L-07;

Instructions for EPW pricing Tabs: Rates tab: Columns L-M on the Rates tab provide the ERI benchmark rates by labor category and location. The ERI mean and 90th percentile direct labor rates (give or take one dollar per hour), plus escalation for years 2-6, serve as the benchmarks between which the Government will accept the proposed direct labor rates as reasonable and realistic without any further justification from the offeror. For proposed direct labor rates outside these benchmarks, the offeror must provide objective evidence that the rates are reasonable and realistic in the narrative section of the cost/price volume.

Attachment L-07 Excel Pricing

Workbook Rates Tab

Attachment L-07 Excel Pricing Workbook; tab labeled Labor category - ERI Benchmark Labor Category mappings.

Attachment L-07 Excel Pricing Worksheet, Tab labeled "Labor Category" appears to have inconsistant mapping of the ERI postion titles to the Intermediate Engineer category. The Intermediate Engineer category is mapped to Engineer Supervisor in lieu of Systems Engineer as the Advanced Engineer and Basic Engineer are mapped. Please provide clarification as to how the Intermediate Engineer category should be mapped.

Sec L-13.4 Excel Pricing Workbook (EPW) Attachment L-07; Instructions for EPW pricing Tabs: Labor Category tab:

This tab includes a description of each RFP labor Category along with the ERI Salary Assessor labor category and minimum years of experience used to establish the direct labor rate benchmarks. If the government has selected more than one minimum years of experience in order to cover a wider range of experience to meet the requirement, the lower minimum years of experience salary range is used for the

Survey Mean, and the higher minimum years of experience salary range is used for the 90th percentile.

Attachment J-01 - BMD Systems Engineering PWS

2016-06-15 Section 9, Paragraph b, Page 89 and Section 9, Table 9.1:Transition and Staffing Timeline

Reference Section 9, Page 89, Paragraph b states "… The Transition Period begins on the first day of period of performance. The Transition Period ends 20 working days after start of period of performance."

Reference Table 9.1: Transition and Staffing Timeline Staff to support all Performance Objectives: NLT 10 work days after start of Period of Performance

Will the government clarify the apparent discrepancies between the stated 20 working day transition period and the 10 work day requirement to have staff in place to support all Performance Objectives.

The PWS will be revised for the final RFP.

Section L BMD Systems Engineering 6.28.16

L-4.4 Table L-1

Section M BMD Systems

Engineering 6.28.16 Section M-7.1

Section L-4.4 Table L-1 shows the page count for Technical Volume Tab 1: Technical Expertise/Approach as 30 pages.

Section M-7.1 states "While the Government’s evaluation will assess the offeror’s (inclusive of team members) understanding of the entire scope of work and approach to satisfying all PWS requirements,..."

Our analysis shows that the approach, understanding, and performance risk assessment of all 83 pages of technical PWS requirements can be described in a 37 page proposal.

Recommend changing Table L-1:

Proposal Organization and Content in DRFP Section L-4.4 from a 30 page limit to a 37 page limit.

See response to #1 above

Section L BMD Systems Engineering 6.28.16

Section L-4.4 Page 9 and

Section L-10.3

L-4.4 Table L-1 Volume VI Past Performance, Tab 3 Page Limit of 25 Pages

L-10.3 Past Performance Information (PPI), Attachment (L-01): A maximum of ten PPIs may be submitted for the entire team. The team consists of the Prime offeror, its proposed

Attachment L-01 Past Performance Information form and format is almost two pages prior to adding the offeror's past performance information; a significant portion of the page count would be dedicated to format conformity. Given the magnitude of the PWS, will the Government consider increasing the page limitation for Tab 3 to 30

Page limitation for Attachment L-01 Past Performance will be increased to 30 pages.

subcontractors and/or joint ventures.

pages so that the offeror has sufficient space to establish full relevancy to the PWS?

Attachment J-01 - BMD Systems Engineering PWS

2016-06-15 Section 3 Table 3.1

Section 3.1

Table 3.1 Shows the locations for Performance Objective #1:

BMDS Planning and Architecture Development as:

Dahlgren, VA (DHL); National Capitol Region (NCR);

Huntsville, AL (HSV)

3.1 Performance Objective #1:

BMDS Planning and Architecture Development The stakeholders for this PO are

DE/B, EBA, EBC, DVR, GD,

and TH.

The stakeholders listed for Performance Objective 1 are listed as DE/B, EBA, EBC, DVR, GD, and TH. The primary stakeholder for the Dahlgren location would be AB. If AB is not a stakeholder for this PO, can the government clarify which stakeholder has a requirement for personnel to be located at the Dahlgren location?

DE/B is the stakeholder for the requirements in paragraph 3.1.a.4, which includes support at the Dahlgren location.

Attachment J-01 - BMD Systems Engineering PWS

2016-06-15 Section 3.1

Paragraph 3.1.a.4 Page 12 and

HQ147-16-R-0009_-

_Draft_FRP_BMD_Systems_E ngineering Solicitation Items 0032, 1032, 2032, 3032 Pages 9, 20, 32, 45

3.1.a.4 Assist with developing performance requirements for integration of Gun-Based Defense Systems (GBDS) with the BMDS, and support GBDS technical discussions and meetings. [Stakeholder: DE/B]

The PWS indicates DE/B as the stakeholder for GBDS. The solicitation provides specific CLINs for Railgun labor. Is the GBDS labor covered under the DE labor CLIN (as part of DE/B) or under the Railgun labor CLIN? PWS 3.1.a.4 appears to be the only reference to Railgun requirements in the PWS.

GBDS labor has both DE labor CLIN and Railgun labor CLIN components.

Section L BMD Systems Engineering 6.28.16 Section L-13.4 Table

Reference the Table in Section L-13.4, Page 25.

Should there be a set of CLIN entries for 0232, 1232, 2232 Railgun Travel in this Table?

Yes, Section L will be revised to include the Railgun CLINs (0232, 1232, 2232, and 4232) in the table.

Attachment J-01 - BMD Systems Engineering PWS

2016-06-15 Section 3.3 - 3.9

Pages 24 - 66

There are several instances where Stakeholder summaries listed in Parent performance work statements do not include all of the Stakeholders that are listed in their Subordinate performance work statements.

There are several instances where Stakeholder summaries listed in Parent performance work statement requirements and associated products do not include all of the Stakeholders that are listed in their Subordinate performance work

PWS 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, and 3.9 will be revised for the final RFP to list all stakeholders.

Regarding the stakeholder CLINs – the EPW should show the stakeholders for each PWS paragraph… there are no subordinate stakeholder CLINs for the sub-

Page 24: PWS 3.3; Page 25:

PWS 3.3.b.2, 3; Pages 26-27:

3.3.c.2, 3, 4, 5; Page 28: PWS 3.3.e.2; Pages 29-44: PWS 3.4;

Page 29: 3.4.a, c, d, i, k,l, m;

Page 45-49: PWS 3.5; Page 50:

PWS 3.6; Page 58-63: PWS 3.8.b.2, 6, 9, 14, 15; Page 63 PWS 3.8.d; Pages 64-66: PWS 3.8.e,g, h; Page 66 PWS 3.9 statements and associated products.

Every subordinate stakeholder should be listed in the Parent PWS and each stakeholder listed in the Parent PWS should be listed in at least one of the subordinate PWS.

Please resolve these discrepancies in the Draft RFP.

Based on DRFP Instruction L-13.5, Basis of Estimate includes CLIN (stakeholder). Stakeholder discrepancies inhibit pricing by stakeholder CLIN.

DE offices (e.g., DE pays for DEA, DEB, EEA, EEV, et al.)

Attachment J-01 - BMD Systems Engineering PWS

2016-06-15 Section 1.3

This effort requires participation in or assistance with the multiple system engineering forums including:

− Assessment Integrated Product Team (AIPT)

- ETC (list of 21 other forums)

The Systems Engineering Forums listed do not include the Modeling & Simulation aspects of this Systems Engineering contract.

Please add the Systems Engineering Forums that pertain to the Modeling and Simulation portion of this contract.

The PWS includes the forums stipulated by the stakeholders for Systems Engineering and M&S; no revision of the PWS is necessary.

Section L BMD Systems Engineering 6.28.16

Section L-10.5 Page17

L-10.5 states "The offeror shall provide a consent letter for each proposed subcontractor using the format provided at Attachment L- 03, Consent Letter."

Please confirm if Consent Letters Attachment L-03 are required for all proposed subcontractors, or just subcontractors for which the offeror is submitting a PPI Attachment L- 01.

The Consent Letters apply to the offeror and all teaming partners to include any subcontractors where past performance information is submitted with the proposal.

Attachment L-02 Past- Performance Questionnaire -

Template Final Instructions: paragraph

Engineering 6.28.16

Section L-1.3

Instructions:

◊....The assessor, ...., and submit to the Contracting Office.

◊Section II to be validated by the assessor...... Instead, please e-mail the completed questionnaire(s) to:

Gladys.Erskine@mda.mil

L-1.3 The Procuring

Instructions Section indicates that the "Assessor should email the completed Questionnaire" to someone other than the Procuring Contracting Officer listed as the sole Point of Contact at L-1.3.

Is this the correct recipient for the Past Performance Questionnaire, and if not will the Government

Correspondence should go to the current PCO: Mr. Jeffrey McMillan Email: Jeffrey.mcmillan@mda.mil final Atch L-02 will be revised to reflect this change.

Contracting Officer (PCO) is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the PCO. Written requests for exchanges of information may be sent to the PCO via email. Email is the preferred method for exchanges of information. The PCO for this acquisition is as follows:

Mr. Jeffrey McMillan Email:

Jeffrey.mcmillan@mda.mil provide a corrected Past Performance Questionnaire?

Section_L_BMD_Systems_ Engineering_6.28.16

Section L-11.1, and Attachment J-01 - BMD

Systems Engineering PWS 2016-06-15

Section L-11.1 states, "the offeror shall clearly describe their approach and understanding, including a performance risk assessment, to execute ALL PWS requirements." (emphasis added).

And further states "All PWS requirements" in the following paragraph.

Section M-7.1 states "... All PWS requirements."

Attachment J-01 TEAMS Performance Work Statement BMD System Engineering 15 June 2016 Sections 1 through 10

Attachment J-01 Performance Work Statement 3, titled Performance Objectives and Detailed Requirements, presents the objectives to be performed in accordance with the PWS.

It appears that most of Performance Work Statements 4 through 10 should be addressed in proposal volume responses other than the Technical Volume.

Will the government clarify if Attachment J-01 PWS Sections 4 through 10 are required to be addressed in the Technical Volume as prescribed in Section L-11.1 or can the offeror address these PWS Sections in other volumes of the proposal (e.g. Management, Security, Transition)?

We recommend the Government revise Section L and Section M to

The final RFP will be revised to clarify that L-11.1 first two paragraphs as well as M-

7.1 refer to all of the Performance Objective requirements in PWS Section 3.

clarify their intentions.

Attachment J-01 - BMD Systems Engineering PWS

2016-06-15 Section 1.2.f Sensors Program

Office (MDA/SN)

"The Sensors Program Office (MDA/SN) develops, tests, acquires, deploys, and sustains BMDS Radars including Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR), Army/Navy Transportable Radar Surveillance and Control Model- 2 Radar (AN/TPY-2), Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX), Ground- Based Radar-Prototype (GBR- P), Upgraded Early Warning Radars (UEWR), and COBRA DANE Radar (CD).Section lists Key Products as "Technical Reports and White Papers (ECI); ITAG Technical Reports and White Papers (ECI)' Program Specifications and Interface Specifications (ECI);

Technical Reports (ECI)"

Since the Ground-Based Radar- Prototype (GBR-P) responsibility has been transferred from MDA to SMDC, is the GBR-P still in scope for this PWS?

The PWS will be revised to remove GBR- P.

Attachment J-01 - BMD Systems Engineering PWS

2016-06-15 Section 3.4

Page 42 (PWS 3.4.i.1)

DRFP PWS 3.4.i.1 Key Products: Meetings (EBC), DPR, DBR, TBR and BAR Support (EBC); Technical Reports (ECI); After Action Reports (ECI); Status Reports (ECI); Meeting Minutes (EEF);

Courses of Action (COAs) (EEF); Contingency Plans (EEF); Implementation Plan (EEF); Audit Responses (EEF);

Action Item File Responses (EEF); Executive Summary (EXSUM) for Executive Reviews (EEF); Reports (DVR); TIMs Summary Report (TH); Mission

Please verify if "Meetings (EBC), DPR, DBR, TBR and BAR Support (EBC)" are 'Key Products' rather than contractor activities that need to be supported.

Meetings (EBC), DPR, DBR, TBR and BAR Support (EBC)" are contractor activities. Paragraph 3.7.a.2 will be revised to remove reference to the meetings

Data Reviews (MDR) Summary Report (TH); QLBs (TH)

Attachment J-01 - BMD Systems Engineering PWS

2016-06-15 Section 3.3.d.3

Section lists Key Products as "Technical Reports and White Papers (ECI); ITAG Technical Reports and White Papers (ECI)' Program Specifications and Interface Specifications (ECI);

Technical Reports (ECI)"

Is the last Technical Reports listing unnecessary? If not, how is this different from the Technical Reports and White Papers for ECI?

The PWS will be revised for the final RFP to remove last reference to Technical Reports.

Attachment J-01 - BMD Systems Engineering PWS

2016-06-15 Section 3.4

Page 30 (PWS 3.4.b,)

DRFP PWS 3.4.b states, "Assist with IMAP, Integrated Master Modeling Plan (IMMP), and ..."

Please verify that the IMMP acronym stands for "Integrated Master Modeling Plan" rather than "Integrated Master M&S Plan".

No PWS revision necessary.

IMMP = Integrated Master Modeling Plan, as spelled out in the acronym list is at the end of the PWS.

Attachment J-01 - BMD Systems Engineering PWS

2016-06-15 Section 3.10

3.10 Title - Performance

Objective #10: Foreign Material Sales Weapon Systems Support

Please verify that PO #10 is "Foreign Material Sales" rather than "Foreign Military Sales". These terms appear to be used interchangeably throughout the

PWS.

The PWS will be revised to reflect FMS = Foreign Military Sales, as spelled out in the acronym list at the end of the PWS.

Section L BMD Systems Engineering 6.28.16

Section L-13.5

11) Complete the following table which describes the allocation base for each proposed indirect rate/factor. If multiple rates have the same allocation base, group together. This information should conform to the estimating and accounting systems of the Offerors, IWTAs and major subcontractors as previously noted above in Section L-14.4.

Reference is to Section L-14.4.

However, there is no L-14.4. What is the proper reference?

Appropriate reference is to be L-13.4 Section L will be revised to reflect this change.

Section L BMD Systems Engineering 6.28.16

Section L-4.12 Page 11 and

Section L-6.2

L-4.12 Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Each response to each subfactor shall be self-contained.

Solicitation requires that each volume be written on a standalone basis, but the Cross Reference Table is only addressed under Volume II Executive Summary. Is it permissible to have a separate Cross Reference Table at the beginning of each volume and not have it counted

A separate Cross Reference Table is not required. If provided, it will not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

L-6.2 Proposal Cross Reference Matrix: The offeror shall provide a matrix using the format below (Table L-2) to cross reference their proposal to, at a minimum, the PWS and Sections L and M. The offeror’s proposal paragraph number and format shall mirror Sections L and M paragraph numbering to the maximum extent practicable.

The offeror may populate and include additional columns as it sees fit to accommodate a more efficient evaluation. This is only a tool to assist in the proposal process and is provided for informational purposes only.

The contractor is ultimately responsible for ensuring all areas are fully addressed and all requested information is completed and turned in appropriately IAW Section L of the RFP.

against page count?

Section L BMD Systems Engineering 6.28.16 Section L-4.15 and

Section L-4.14

L-4.15 indicates that "A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked with volume number, copy number, offeror’s name, solicitation title, and solicitation number."

and L-4.14 indicates "Each volume, except for the Cost Volume, shall have a cover sheet, clearly marked as volume number, “ORIGINAL”, offeror’s name, solicitation title, and

Please clarify if the language "each book" found at L-4.15 excludes the cost volume.

Section L-4.15, Sentence 3 will be reworded as follows: “A cover sheet, when used, should be…” Final RFP will be updated.

solicitation number."

Section L BMD Systems Engineering 6.28.16

Section L-11.1

Reference L11.1 Subfactor TS1 and M-7.1 Subfactor TS1 "15 BMD System Planning, Architecture Development, and Capability Assessment 16 BMD System Design and Technical Baseline Establishment, including integration of products and processes 17 BMD System Tests and System Verification.

18 Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Development, Planning and Operations at the BMD System level."

Please specify if there is any significance associated with the numbers preceding each Emphasis area?

There is no significance associated with the numbers preceding each Emphasis area.

Engineering 6.28.16

Section L-4.17

"Complete electronic volumes shall be submitted in Microsoft Office 2007 or compatible format." and "Pricing spreadsheets (Excel Price Workbook (EPW)) should be submitted using MS Excel 2007 or compatible."

Would the government consider allowing the use of MS Office 2010 or newer products? MS Office 2007 products are several generations out of date.

Use of Microsoft Office 2007 is required for this RFP requirement.