Response_TEAMS_BMD_SE_Final_RFP_QA_(October_3 _2016).pdf

BMD Systems Engineering Response to Industry Questions

10/3/2016

# DRFP Section Reference Question Response

1 Sect L Attachment L‐07 Excel Pricing Worksheet; Rates tab.

Reference Attachment L‐07 Excel Pricing Worksheet, Tab labeled "Rates" Column L (ERI Benchmark Survey Mean), please confirm the government's intention to use a higher mean rate for Intermediate Engineer than Advanced Engineer. If the RFP is amended, we would request that the amendment be issued as soon as possible so as not to impede the timely development of rates by Prime contractor and its subcontractors.

The Referenced Attachment L‐07 Excel Pricing Worksheet, Tab labeled "Rates" Column L (ERI Benchmark Survey Mean) will be updated to reflect the higher rate for the Engineer (Advanced)

2 Sect L Attachment L‐07 Excel Pricing Worksheet; Rates tab.

Reference Attachment L‐07 Excel Pricing Worksheet, Tab labeled "Rates" Column L (ERI Benchmark Survey Mean), please confirm the government's intention to use a higher mean rate for Advanced Analyst than Advanced Engineer. If the RFP is amended, we would request that the amendment be issued as soon as possible so as not to impede the timely development of rates by Prime contractor and its subcontractors.

The Referenced Attachment L‐07 Excel Pricing Worksheet, Tab labeled "Rates" Column L (ERI Benchmark Survey Mean) will be updated to reflect the higher rate for the Engineer (Advanced)

3 Sect L Atch L‐09 Sys Eng Historical Hrs_25Apr2016 Attachment J‐01 does not contain any references to BC as a stakeholder. Can the government confirm that BC is no longer a stakeholder on the BMD SE task?

Confirmed. BC is not a stakeholder for this contract.

Page 1 of 9Approved for Public Release 16-MDA-8818 (14 October 16)

10/3/2016

# DRFP Section Reference Question Response

4 Sect L Attachment L‐09 Sys Eng Historical Hrs_25Apr2016

A table is provided in Section L Attachment L‐09 showing Combined Hours by Stakeholder. This table is not useful in the context shown due to missing information such as period of performance.

The government previously provided Systems Engineering Historical Hours (annual) by Stakeholder, Historical Government Onsite Accommodations (e.g., GFE workstations) per Location and Historical Personnel Security Clearance Requirements in Attachment L‐09 for TEAMS Warfighter Integration, TEAMS C3BM Engineering and TEAMS Weapons & Missile Engineering RFPs. This information is required to establish a fair and competitive proposal process. Will the government update Attachment L‐09 to include similar information for the TEAMS BMD Systems Engineering RFP?

The Attachment L‐09 will be amended to provide additional information.

5 Sect L Atch L‐09

Attachment L‐09 is still marked “Pre‐Decisional Working Paper” and includes one or more stakeholders that are not referenced in the RFP. There also appears to be data missing. Historically L‐09 has included on‐site GFE workstations by location and security clearance requirements. This data was not shown in the Final L‐09 posted last evening. (Draft RFP Question #26)

The Attachment L‐09 will be amended to remove “Pre‐Decisional Working Paper” statement and provide additional information.

6 Sect L Atch L‐10

Attachment L‐07 Excel Pricing Worksheet, Tab labeled "Labor Category" still appears to have inconsistent mapping of the ERI position titles to the Intermediate Engineer category. The Intermediate Engineer category is mapped to Engineer Supervisor, however the Advanced Engineer and Basic Engineer are mapped to System Engineer. The result is higher salaries for the Intermediate Engineer than the Advanced Engineer. Please verify the Intermediate Engineer category mapping is as intended.

Additionally, as noted in our follow‐up questions the mapping of the Analyst categories results in higher salaries for Analysts than Engineers. Please verify the Analyst categories are mapped as intended. (Draft RFP Questions #4 and #25)

The Referenced Attachment L‐07 Excel Pricing Worksheet, Tab labeled "Rates" Column L (ERI Benchmark Survey Mean) will be updated to reflect the higher rate for the Engineer (Advanced)

7 RFP

Because of the number of questions, level of detail requested for the response, the potential need for additional clarification, and short timeline between question response and proposal delivery, will the government consider allowing a minimum 30 day extension to the current proposal due date?

The proposal due date will be extended 15 days from the current proposal due date.

Page 2 of 9Approved for Public Release

10/3/2016

# DRFP Section Reference Question Response

8 Section J PWS 3.1.a.4, page 12

PWS 3.1.a.4 states "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]".

Government response to Draft RFP Q&A #9 indicated that there would be labor for GBDS assigned to the Railgun CLIN. There are no references in the Attachment J‐01 PWS to Railgun as a stakeholder.

Can the government indicate where Railgun is a stakeholder in the Attachment J‐01 PWS ?

This information is required to develop an accurate Cost Proposal.

Railgun is not a stakeholder, but there is a separate CLIN to track Railgun funding. The stakeholder is DE/B as indicated in the PWS.

9 Section J PWS 3.1.a.4 Key Products, page 12

The key product listed in PWS 3.1.a.4, Initial Requirements Document, is not assigned a stakeholder.

Will the government provide a stakeholder for this key product?

This information is required to accurately allocate labor resources.

The stakeholder for the requirement is DE/B as indicated in the

PWS.

The PWS will be amended to show DE/B is the recipient of the product associated with this requirement.

10 Section L Section L‐13.4, Labor Resources Tab bullet

The instructions in this section regarding Basis of Estimate (BOE) state, "the prime offeror may elect to provide a comprehensive BOE covering the prime offeror and all IWTA/subcontractor hours , or the prime offeror may decide to have each team member submit separate BOEs in their cost volumes."

Question: If the Prime contractor submits a comprehensive BOE as per section L-13.4 in lieu of individual BOEs for each major subcontractor, are the major subcontractors required to reference the associated comprehensive BOE narrative in their pricing narrative volume and in their EPW model on the resources tab with the associated page number and BOE number of the comprehensive Team BOE?

Yes, the major subcontractors are required to reference the associated comprehensive BOE narrative in their pricing narrative volume and in their EPW model on the resources tab with the associated page number and BOE number of the comprehensive Team BOE

11 Section J PWS 3.1.a, page 11 EBC is listed as a stakeholder in the Key Products for PWS requirement 3.1.a.

Should EBC be added to PWS 3.1.a as a stakeholder?

The Engineering End‐of‐Week Status and Weekly Activity Reports are associated with the overall Performance Objective #1, not 3.1.a.

The PWS will be amended to move those products under the Task Details paragraph.

12 Section J PWS 3.1.a, 3.1.a.1 ‐ 3.1.a.4, pages 11‐12 DE/B is listed in subordinate PWS requirements 3.1.a.1 ‐ 3.1.a.4.

Should DE/B be added to PWS 3.1.a as a stakeholder?

Yes. DE/B will be added as a stakeholder to paragraph 3.1.a.

13 Section J PWS 3.1.d, 3.1.d.1, page 12 DE/B is listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.1.d.1.

Should DE/B be added to PWS 3.1.d as a stakeholder?

No. EBA is the primary DE/B stakeholder for 3.1.d, and DE/B is the primary stakeholder for 3.1.d.1

14 Section J PWS 3.1.h, 3.1.h.8, pages 14‐16 EBA and EBC are listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.1.h.8.

Should EBA and EBC be added to PWS 3.1.h as stakeholders?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

Page 3 of 9Approved for Public Release

10/3/2016

# DRFP Section Reference Question Response

15 Section J PWS 3.3.a, 3.3.a.3, 3.3.a.4, page 24 DVR is listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.3.a.3 and 3.3.a.4.

Should DVR be added to PWS 3.3.a as a stakeholder?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

16 Section J PWS 3.3.b.2, page 25 DVR is listed as a stakeholder for 3.3.b.2, but none of the key products list DVR.

Please clarify if DVR is a stakeholder for this PWS.

DVR is a stakeholder for the requirement described in 3.3.b.2, but has not requested any of the listed Key Products.

17 Section J PWS 3.3.b.3, page 25 DVR is listed as a stakeholder for 3.3.b.3, but none of the key products list DVR.

Please clarify if DVR is a stakeholder for this PWS.

DVR is a stakeholder for the requirement described in 3.3.b.3, but has not requested any of the listed Key Products.

18 Section J PWS 3.3.c, 3.3.c.2, 3.3.c.5, pages 26‐27 DE/C is listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.3.c.2 and 3.3.c.5.

Should DE/C be added to PWS 3.3.c as a stakeholder?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

19 Section J PWS 3.3.e, 3.3.e.4, pages 28‐29 GM and GD are listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.3.e.4 and its key products.

Should GM and GD be added to PWS 3.3.e as stakeholders?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

20 Section J PWS 3.4.c, 3.4.c.3, pages 32‐33 ECI is listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.4.c.3 and its key products.

Should ECI be added to PWS 3.4.c as a stakeholder?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

21 Section J PWS 3.4.c, 3.4.c.4, pages 32‐33 DE/E is listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.4.c.4. Should DE/E be added to PWS 3.4.c as a stakeholder?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

22 Section J PWS 3.4.c, 3.4.c.8, pages 32‐33 EIT is listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.4.c.8. Should DE/I or EIT be added to PWS 3.4.c as a stakeholder?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

23 Section J PWS 3.4.d, 3.4.d.12, 3.4.d.14, page 34 ECI is listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.4.d.12, 3.4.d.14 and their key products. Should ECI be added to PWS 3.4.d as a stakeholder?

Yes. ECI will be added as a stakeholder to paragraph 3.4.d.

24 Section J PWS 3.4.d, 3.4.d.1, page 34 EEV is listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.4.d.1 key products.

Should EEV be added to PWS 3.4.d as a stakeholder?

No. EEV will be removed as a stakeholder for the CEC/EME Smart Book product in 3.4.d.1.

25 Section J PWS 3.4.d, 3.4.d.4, 3.4.d.5, 3.4.d.10, 3.4.d.11, 3.4.d.16

DE/E is listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.4.d.4, 3.4.d.5, 3.4.d.10, 3.4.d.11, and 3.4.d.16. Should DE/E be added to PWS 3.4.d as a stakeholder?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

26 Section J PWS 3.4.d, 3.4.d.1, page 34 DE/B is listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.4.d.1. Should DE/B be added to PWS 3.4.d as a stakeholder?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

27 Section J PWS 3.4.i, 3.4.i.1, page 42 DE/B, EBC, ECB, DVR, TC & TH are listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.4.i.1 and its key products. Should DE/B, EBC, ECB, DVR, TC & TH be added to PWS 3.4.i as a stakeholder?

Yes.

DE/B, EBC, ECB, DVR, TC, and TH will be added as stakeholders in paragraph 3.4.i.

28 Section J PWS 3.4.k, 3.4.k.1, page 43 EEF and DVR are listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.4.k.1 and its key products. Should EEF and DVR be added to PWS 3.4.k as stakeholders?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

Page 4 of 9Approved for Public Release

10/3/2016

# DRFP Section Reference Question Response

29 Section J PWS, 3.4.l, 3.4.l.1, page 43 TC, TH and DVR are listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.4.l.1 and its key products. Should TC, TH and DVR be added to PWS 3.4.l as stakeholders?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

30 Section J PWS 3.4.l, 3.4.l.2, 3.4.l.3, 3.4.l.4, pages 43‐44 EEF is listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.4.l.2, 3.4.l.3, 3.4.l.4 and key products. Should EEF be added to PWS 3.4.l as a stakeholder?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

31 Section J PWS 3.4.l, 3.4.l.3, 3.4.l.4, pages 43‐44 EEV is listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.4.l.3, 3.4.l.4 and their key products. Should EEV be added to PWS 3.4.l as a stakeholder?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

32 Section J PWS 3.4.l, 3.4.l.3, 3.4.l.5, pages 43‐44 EIT is listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.4.l.3, 3.4.l.5 and their key products. Should EIT be added to PWS 3.4.l as a stakeholder?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

33 Section J PWS 3.4.l, 3.4.l.4, pages 43‐44 EEA is listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.4.l.4 and its key products. Should EEA be added to PWS 3.4.l as a stakeholder?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

34 Section J PWS 3.4.m, 3.4.m.1, page 44 DE/B is listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.4.m.1. Should DE/B be added to PWS 3.4.m as a stakeholder?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

35 Section J PWS 3.4.m, 3.4.m.1, 3.4.m.2, page 44 EEA, EEF, EEV, TC and TH are listed in subordinate PWS requirements 3.4.m.1, 3.4.m.2, and their key products. Should EEA, EEF, EEV, TC and TH be added to PWS 3.4.m as stakeholders?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

36 Section J PWS 3.4.m, 3.4.m.1, page 44 EIT is listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.4.m.1. Should EIT be added to PWS 3.4.m as a stakeholder?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

37 Section J PWS 3.4.m, 3.4.m.2, page 44 DVR is listed in subordinate PWS requirement 3.4.m.2, and its key products. Should DVR be added to PWS 3.4.m as a stakeholder?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

38 Section J PWS 3.7.a, 3.7.a.1, 3.7.a.2, page 51 EBC is listed in subordinate PWS requirements 3.7.a.1 and 3.7.a.2 and their key products. Should EBC be added to PWS 3.7.a as a stakeholder instead of ECB?

No. The stakeholders are correct as shown in the PWS.

39 Section J PWS 3.7.b, 3.7.b.8, page 52 EEF is listed in subordinate PWS requirements 3.7.b.8 and its key products. Should EEF be added to PWS 3.7.b as a stakeholder?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

40 Section J PWS 3.7.b, 3.7.b.10, pages 52‐53 DE/E is listed in subordinate PWS requirements 3.7.b.10. Should DE/E be added to PWS 3.7.b as a stakeholder?

DE/E is listed as a stakeholder in PWS paragraph 3.7.b.

41 Section J PWS 3.1.a.1

PWS 3.1.a.1 states "Conduct ... initial requirements development."

What type of requirements are being developed?

Are the requirements for the integrated BMDS architecture roadmap, future BMDS capabilities or something else?

There are no Key Products listed for this requirement. Is this correct?

Reference the Performance Objective #1 Task Details paragraph for additional information on requirements development.

There are no additional key products for PWS paragraph 3.1.a.1.

Page 5 of 9Approved for Public Release

10/3/2016

# DRFP Section Reference Question Response

42 Section J PWS 3.1.a.1

PWS 3.1.a.1 states "Conduct ... Threat to Capability Gap Analysis, concept alternatives trade studies..."

How many Theat to Capability Gap Analyses are required?

How many Alternative Trade Studies are required?

How many Advanced Technology Demonstrations are required?

There are no Key Products listed for this requirement. Is this correct?

The analyses will support products in associated PWS requirements. The nominal annual quantities for those products are contained in the Bid‐To list.

There are no additional key products for PWS paragraph 3.1.a.1.

43 Section J PWS 3.1.a.2

PWS 3.1.a.2 states "Generate, identify, define, develop and analyze new and/or modified sensor, weapons, ... C2BMC system concepts..."

Are there government or contractor unique tools being used for this activity? Will the tools be provided as GFX? Is there a description of the Tools?

No. Specific and/or unique Government furnished tools required for specific tasks are listed with the associated PWS paragraphs.

44 Section J PWS 3.1.b

PWS 3.1.b states "Analyze ... technical performance parameter selections for high‐level integrated BMDS architecture analysis."

Are there government or contractor unique tools being used for this activity? Will the tools be provided as GFX? Is there a description of the Tools?

No. Specific and/or unique Government furnished tools required for specific tasks are listed with the associated PWS paragraphs.

45 Section J PWS 3.1.e

PWS 3.1.e lists Architecture Effectiveness & Alternatives White Paper as Key Products.

What type of analyses are required? Are these programmatic analyses, technical analyses, assessments? Will data be available to analyze?

Are there government or contractor unique tools being used for this activity? Will the tools be provided as GFX? Is there a description of the Tools?

The requirement specified in PWS paragraph 3.1.e is for analyses of the effectiveness of alternative architectures.

No. Specific and/or unique Government furnished tools required for specific tasks are listed with the associated PWS paragraphs.

46 Section J PWS 3.1.g.1

PWS 3.1.g.1 states "... This effort will require analyses and comparative trade studies..."

Are there government or contractor unique tools being used for this activity?

Will the tools be provided as GFX?

Is there a description of the Tools?

How many analyses will be performed?

Are there any key products?

No. Specific and/or unique Government furnished tools required for specific tasks are listed with the associated PWS paragraphs.

There are no additional key products for PWS paragraph 3.1.g.1.

47 Section J PWS 3.1.g.4

PWS 3.1.g.4 states "Conduct and/or review and assess system engineering trades analysis utilizing M&S to document performance levels..."

Are there government or contractor unique tools being used for this activity?

Will the tools be provided as GFX?

Is there a description of the Tools?

How many analyses will be performed?

Are there any key products?

No. Specific and/or unique Government furnished tools required for specific tasks are listed with the associated PWS paragraphs.

There are no additional key products for PWS paragraph 3.1.g.4.

Page 6 of 9Approved for Public Release

10/3/2016

# DRFP Section Reference Question Response

48 Section J PWS 3.1.g.5

PWS 3.1.g.5 states "Analyze BMDS program characterisics and features … track messages, sensor tasking and communications protocols…" Are there government or contractor unique tools being used for this activity?

Will the tools be provided as GFX?

Is there a description of the Tools?

No. Specific and/or unique Government furnished tools required for specific tasks are listed with the associated PWS paragraphs.

49 Section J PWS 3.1.g.6

PWS 3.1.g.6 states "Conduct independent studies, identify architecture solutions, and recommend BMDS architecture modifications..."

Are there government or contractor unique tools being used for this activity?

Will the tools be provided as GFX?

Is there a description of the Tools?

How many independent studies will be performed?

Are there any key products?

No. Specific and/or unique Government furnished tools required for specific tasks are listed with the associated PWS paragraphs.

50 Section J PWS 3.1.i.3

PWS 3.1.i.3 states "Analyze, assess, and assist in the production of SAP information..."

Are there government or contractor unique tools being used for this activity?

Will the tools be provided as GFX?

Is there a description of the Tools?

How many analyses will be performed?

Are there any key products?

No. Specific and/or unique Government furnished tools required for specific tasks are listed with the associated PWS paragraphs.

51 Section J PWS 3.1.c.1

PWS 3.1.c.1 lists Assessments as a Key Product.

Are there government or contractor unique tools being used for this activity?

Will the tools be provided as GFX?

Is there a description of the Tools?

No. Specific and/or unique Government furnished tools required for specific tasks are listed with the associated PWS paragraphs.

52 Section J PWS 3.1.e.3

PWS 3.1.e.3 states "Assess BMDS technical performance for operationally realistic theater regional threats."

Are there government or contractor unique tools being used for this activity?

Will the tools be provided as GFX?

Is there a description of the Tools?

No. Specific and/or unique Government furnished tools required for specific tasks are listed with the associated PWS paragraphs.

53 Section L PO 3.1 and 3.2

Will the government provide sample products for PO 3.1 and 3.2?

No. Sample products were not provided for Performance Objective 3.1 or Performance Objective 3.2.

54 Section J PWS 3.1.e.1

PWS 3.1.e.1 states "Assist in planning, structuring, executing, documenting and reporting studies and Analysis of Alternatives…" How many studies will be performed? How many AoAs?

The studies and analyses will support products in associated PWS requirements. The nominal annual quantities for those products are contained in the Bid‐To list.

55 Section J PWS 3.1.d.1

PWS 3.1.d.1 states "Independently analyze BMDS programs and conduct technical interchage meetings (TIM)…" How often are the TIMs?

Technical Interchange Meetings are conducted as required.

56 Section J PWS 3.1.g.3

PWS 3.1.g.3 states "Participate in working groups, Integrated Product Teams, meetings, reviews, panels, boards and conferences..."

How many working groups, IPTs, Meetings, reviews, panels, boards and conferences?

What are the frequency of the working groups, IPTs, meetings, reviews, panels, boards and conferences?

Integrated Product Teams (IPTs), meetings, reviews, panels, boards, and conferences are conducted as required.

Page 7 of 9Approved for Public Release

10/3/2016

# DRFP Section Reference Question Response

57 RFP Section B DE/B, DE/C, DE/E, DEA, DEO, DE/W are not assigned CLINS in Section B of the RFP. Does the government intend for offerors to include these stakeholders under the DE CLIN?

Yes, these stakeholders are part of the DE CLIN

58 Section J

PWS 3.3.d.5 Key Products, Page 28

The text of PWS 3.3.d.5 duplicates that of PWS 3.3.e.4. PWS 3.3.d.5 contains three key products; however, PWS 3.3.e.4 only contains two key products.

The Key Products listed in Section 3.3.d.5 are "Program Specifications and Interface Specifications (ECI, GM, TH); Reports and White Papers (Assessments) (ECI, GD)".

The Key products listed in Section 3.3.e.4 are "Program Specifications and Interface Specifications (ECI, GM, TH); BMD System Specification Variance (GM, TH); Reports and White Papers (Assessments) (ECI, GD)".

Should BMD System Specification Variance (GM, TH) be listed as a key product in PWS 3.3.d.5?

No. The BMD System Specification Variance is not a key product for PWS paragraph 3.3.d.5.

59 Section J PWS 3.3.c.4, page 26

PWS 3.3.c.4 states "Assess the BMDS TBL, provide white papers with recommendations, and analyze feedback for possible impacts to the proposed content. [Stakeholders: ECI, DVR, TH] Key Products (as required) are listed as: Reports and White Papers

(ECI, TH)."

None of the Key products or subordinate PWS statements reference DVR.

Please clarify that DVR is a stakeholder for this PWS statement.

DVR is a stakeholder for the requirement described in 3.3.c.4, but has not requested any of the listed Key Products.

60 Section J PWS 3.3.c.5, page 27

PWS 3.3.c.5 states "Document feedback and impacts to the BMDS TBL in after action reports, track action items, and recommend action item closure and/or Courses of Action (COAs) for system‐ and subsystem‐level engineering technical reviews. [Stakeholders:

DE/B, DE/C]".

Key Products (as required) are listed as: After Action Reports (DE/B). Neither DE/C or its' subordinate organiztions are referenced in preparation of the Key Products.

Please clarify that DE/C is a stakeholder for this PWS statement.

DE/C is a stakeholder for the requirement described in 3.3.c.5, but has not requested any of the listed Key Products.

61 Section J PWS 3.3.e.2, page 28

PWS 3.3.e.2 states "Review SEIC and ISG presentations and change packages; review baseline, technical, and risk assessments;

distribute change packages to appropriate DE core stakeholders;

participate in meetings and reviews; and develop assessments, analyses, and notes for efforts related to BMDS products.

[Stakeholders: ECB, EED]".

Key Products (as required) are listed as: Change Request Forms (ECB); Single Technical Authority Decision Memos (ECB); ISG Decision Memos (ECB); Staff Packages (ECB); BMDS TBLMKO Portal Site (ECB); BMDS TBL CMKO Portal Site (ECB); Summary Unclassified TBL Spreadsheet (ECB). None of the Key Products reference EED.

Please clarify that EED is a stakeholder for this PWS.

EED is a stakeholder for the requirement described in 3.3.e.2, but has not requested any of the listed Key Products.

Page 8 of 9Approved for Public Release

10/3/2016

# DRFP Section Reference Question Response

62 Section J PWS 3.4.a, page 29

PWS 3.4.a states "Write and maintain the BMDS MIP for system, program, and component‐level recommendations including system‐ level integration. [Stakeholders: DE/B, ECB, EEV, TC, TH]".

EEF is listed as a Stakeholder in subordinate PWS Statement 3.4.a.1 but is not listed as a Stakeholder in the Parent PWS requirement (3.4.a). Can the government clarify if EEF is a stakeholder for 3.4.a?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

63 Section J PWS 3.4.a, page 29

PWS 3.4.a states "Write and maintain the BMDS MIP for system, program, and component‐level recommendations including system‐ level integration. [Stakeholders: DE/B, ECB, EEV, TC, TH]".

DVR is listed as a Key Product Stakeholder for 3.4.1.a but is not listed as a Stakeholder in the Parent PWS requirement (3.4.a) Can the government clarify if DVR should be a Stakeholder for 3.4.a?

No. Stakeholders for subordinate requirements are not necessarily stakeholders for the parent requirement.

64 Section J PWS 3.10.b.2 Key Products

PWS 3.10.b.2 Key Product states "UAE THAAD Summary Analysis;

UAE THAAD Software Schedules". This is the only Key Product that is specific to a country (UAE). Should this Key Product state "FMS" in lieu of "UAE"?

Yes. The Key Product names will be updated in the PWS.

65 Section L Attachment L‐11 Bidders' Library Attachment L‐11 includes an incorrect point of contact (POC) for access to the bidders' library. Please update Attachment L‐11 with the proper contact information.

Attachment L‐11 has been updated with the correct contact information.

Page 9 of 9Approved for Public Release