Q_and_A_from_17_March_2017_Special_Notice_Posting.pdf

1) PWS. How can the draft PWS be improved? Are there ambiguities or uncertainties that the government can address prior to releasing the final draft?

Industry Response: The Draft Performance Work Statement has been well thought out and accurately reflects the scope of work anticipated for the JBADS program. Clarification is desired in the following areas:

a. Under Section 3.5.4 of the Mobilization Plan it states that “the deployment location will be in a non‐active combat location”. Neither the PWS nor the PSpec provides any parameters concerning the operational site, e.g., improved or unimproved, pavement or concrete, minimum thickness of concrete. This would be information critical to the AE design.

b. What information would be necessary to obtain pre‐CDR authorization to procure long lead items in order to meet the Government’s development schedule?

c. Will the government release a draft Systems Engineering Plan/Requirement and a list of anticipated GFI and GFE prior to the release of a final RFP? This information is necessary to develop accurate costing to execute the program.

d. Will the prime contractor be required to possess a Facility Security Clearance prior to contract award?

e. Inclusion of the Government’s Test & Evaluation Master Plan (even if draft) will help to ensure contractors bid appropriate level of effort to support the Government’s test events

Government Response to Industry:

a. For parameters on the operational site, Offeror can assume the operational site will be improved, concrete with a minimum thickness of 8 inches. We will update section 3.5.4 to also request that the contractor identify what provisions are necessary for asphalt surfaces and for concrete that is not 8 inches thick (e.g. pour more concrete, larger earth anchors, etc.).

b. Identification of long lead items and a description of the need along with a review of the system design to ensure that sections pertaining to the long lead items are considered stable enough that areas where changes may occur will not affect the purchase of these items.

c. The Government will not release a draft Systems Engineering Plan. The requirements for the system are in the Performance Specification. The Government plans to release a draft Delivery Order Request and updated Performance Work Statement prior to releasing the final Delivery Order Request. The Delivery Order Request package will have updated Government Furnished Information and Government Furnished Equipment included.

d. The Prime Contractor will not be required to possess a Facility Security Clearance prior to contract award.

e. The Government will not release the Test and Evaluation Master Plan but plans to provide a more detailed description of the Test Events.

2) Risk‐‐Schedule/ Cost. Is the schedule doable? Would an appropriate incentive motivate industry to more rapidly meet program goals (e.g., Operational Assessment, IOC, FOC, etc.)? What is the risk level in being able to complete IOC (2019) and FOC (2021) at the desired times?

Industry Response: Assessing the feasibility of conducting the Start of Work meeting concurrently with CDR cannot be done without reviewing the Government’s SEP to understand the expected entrance/exit criteria.

Even with that information, it is viewed as high risk to expect the CDR that early in the program (with information provided 15 calendar days prior). Recommend revising CDR to allow more time after contract award to finalize design and complete entrance criteria, without revising milestones later in the program.

Government Response to Industry: No response needed.

3) Risk‐‐Schedule/ Cost. Would an appropriate incentive motivate industry to meet or exceed the Government’s planned schedule for an early Critical Design Review (conducted concurrently with the Start of Work meeting)?

Industry Response: As currently outlined in Section 3.1.6.1.1 of the PWS, a CDR held concurrently with the Start of Work Meeting would require that most, if not all, critical engineering, design and analysis be completed prior to contract award and forwarded to the Government thirty (30) calendar days after contract award. That level of effort would put the contractor at excessive financial risk in the event they failed to win the award. In addition, it might force potential competitors to bid a “safer” and more “off‐the‐shelf” system that may not meet the Government’s desired objective to reduce weight, volume and O&S costs. We would suggest the following:

a) More clearly define the entrance and exit criteria for the CDR. What are the deliverables truly essential for the Government to properly balance risk mitigation with schedule adherence?

b) In order to meet the schedule as outlined in the latest release, the Government’s typical 15‐30‐day review period of each CDRL will prohibit an accelerated schedule without compressing Government review periods. Take consideration.

c) We suggest that instead a Preliminary Design Review is held concurrently with the Start of Work meeting. The CDR to be scheduled 60‐90 days after the PDR. To allow appropriate review time of the CDR, we suggest the OA is moved 30 days. We are confident that we could meet the remaining schedule requirements based on our past success of designing, building and operating JBADS systems that have met program requirements.

d) We would be amenable to a series of incentives and disincentives that mandated threshold or “mandatory requirements” and rewarded the achievement of the “desired requirements” as outlined in Version 5 of the Draft Performance Specification for JBADS dated 10 Mar 2017.

Government Response to Industry:

a) The criteria for the Configuration Design Review will be defined in the Configuration Design Review Technical Review Action Plan (TRAP). The DRAFT TRAP will be released with the final DOR.

b) No response needed.

c) No response needed.

d) No response needed.

4) Risk – Performance/ Cost. Would an appropriate incentive motivate industry to reduce Operating and Support (O&S) costs?

Industry Response: Yes, we believe that we could offer several suggestions that could result in substantial O&S cost savings throughout the entire JBADS product life cycle. However, there would need to be an acceptable benchmark against which such savings are measured.

5) Risk – Performance/ Cost. Will the Government's desire to reduce weight and volume extend the design period and negate the schedule incentive? Would an appropriate incentive motivate industry to accomplish both?

Industry Response: Yes, we believe there would be a positive effect of incentivizing a JBADS system that was lighter and less voluminous than the JCTD version and we believe we can accomplish this without adversely impacting the program schedule with the following caveats:

a) The requirement of concurrent Start of Work and Critical Design Review must be modified. Either move the CDR to 60‐90 days after the SOW meeting or modify the CDR entry and exit documentation requirements. We believe we could still meet or beat the rest of the program schedule without taking excessive financial risk prior to contract award.

b) Establish a benchmark against which any weight or volume reductions would be measured. We believe a reasonable benchmark would be the current JCTD version of JBADS, as that is the only system that has been successfully validated against mission requirements.

Other General Comments from Industry:

a. Please provide a draft of the Sections L&M so that offerors can review and determine the level of proposal support required to respond to the final RFP – large Technical Proposals responses that require 50‐100 pages take a significant amount of time and effort to write. We would recommend a streamlined proposal process where a technical proposal of no more than 25 pages or less is required. For Section M, we recommend putting past performance as the number one evaluation criteria. Having a proven contractor that has direct relevant experience with the JBADS program will significantly reduce the Government’s program schedule and cost risk.