The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
IBCS HW LRIP/FRP DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS/ANSWERS
8 JULY 2020
| NUMBER |
| DOCUMENT |
| SECTION |
| ISSUE/QUESTION |
| ANSWER |
| 1 |
| Attachment 15b-Fixed Price Level of Effort Labor Category List |
| NA |
| The Administrative Level 3 (ADM 03) appears to contain the description/education/ experience requirements for a Property Administrator instead of that for an ADM 03. |
Please confirm this line should be labelled as a Property Administrator and an additional line will be added for ADM 03 with appropriate description/education/experience requirements.
The FP LOE CLINs is changed from FPLOE to CPFF for New Capabilities Engineering Services and CPIF for Logistic/Reliability Support. The CLIN type will be updated in the Final RFP and the Fixed Price Level of Effort Labor Category List will be removed from the Final RFP.
| 2 |
| Attachment 15b-Fixed Price Level of Effort Labor Category List |
| NA |
| The matrix doesn't appear to allow for the substitution of experience for education. Please confirm substitution of experience is allowed for education. |
The FP LOE CLINs are changed from FPLOE to CPFF for New Capabilities Engineering Services and CPIF for Logistic/Reliability Support. Therefore, the Fixed Price Level of Effort Labor Category List will be removed from the Final RFP.
| 3 |
| Attachment 19-Section L |
| Sections L.1.c, L.1.2.b |
| There is conflicting guidance on font size. |
Can the Government clarify?
L.2.b, the font size shall mirror the size in L.1.c. This will be updated in FINAL RFP.
| 4 |
| Attachment 19-Section L |
| Section L.3, Vol II, Part A, (ii) |
| The Past Performance threshold for relevance is vague. We assume the $1B annual total potential value threshold stated in Part A is an aggregate of all programs cited in the Past Performance History Matrix. Is this correct? Also, can the Government clarify relevancy. |
| The Past Performance Factor is removed as a factor in this requirement. The final RFP will be updated to incorporate this change. |
| 5 |
| Attachment 16-Cage Code and Cognizant DCMA/DCAA Information and Attachment 19-Section L |
| Section L, page 17 |
| The Attachment requires bidders to provide DCMA/AA POCs for all subcontractors. Many smaller subcontractors do not have DCMA/AA points of contact and do not have approved accounting systems. In order to reduce the Government workload in evaluating proposals, we recommend establishing this requirement for subcontracts that either 1) are flexibly priced regardless of dollar value or 2) all other subcontract types over $100M. |
| Offerors shall follow the RFP proposal instructions for preparing its Cost/Price Volume proposal. As stated in Section L of the RFP, “Failure to comply with the RFP requirements for Cost/Price information may result in an adverse assessment of an offeror’s proposal and reduce or eliminate its chance of being selected for award.” |
| 6 |
| Attachment 19-Section L |
| Section L, page 1 |
| NDAs are required with Non-Govt source selection companies with no POC information. Will the Non-Govt source selection POCs be provided prior to final RFP? |
| Yes. POCs will be provided in the final RFP. |
| 7 |
| Attachment 19-Section L |
| Section L, pages 4-5 & pages 5-6 & page 17 |
| Conflicting requirements on what version of MS Word and Excel is acceptable. One section says MS 2013, another says MS 1997-2010, and another section is silent on version. Are MS Word and MS Excel version 2016 acceptable for submission? |
| The requirement for specific MS Word and Excel version will be removed in the FINAL RFP. |
| 8 |
| Attachment 19-Section L |
| Section L; pages 4-5 & pages 5-6 & page 17 |
| "Pivot tables shall not be included in the offerors spreadsheets". In order to price and track separately the qty ranges within FPIF CLINs, is it acceptable to create sub-CLINs and then use pivot tables in MS Excel to feed the Attachment 18 TEP model? |
Per the solicitation, pivot tables are not acceptable.
| 9 |
| Attachment 19-Section L |
| Section L, page 17 |
| Section B is currently an uneditable PDF file incorporated into the much larger RFP document. |
Request the Government provide a separate standalone Section B that is in an editable format like MS Word or MS Excel for submission.
The Government will create a separate standalone Section B Sheet.
| 10 |
| Attachment 19-Section L |
| Section L, page 17 |
| "Provide a Table of Contents showing each file submitted as part of the Cost/Price Volume with a short description of the contents of the file. Hyperlink each of these entries in the Table of Contents to the respective files." This table of contents with external hyperlinks will be very difficult to maintain the link as the Government may save, rename, or store files in a way bidders may not anticipate and this will destroy the external links. Can this table or list of submitted material be included without external hyperlinks? |
No
| 11 |
| Attachment 19-Section L |
| Section L, page 22 |
| The optional period describes how the Government will calculate the value based on OP 5 and indicates the Government will do simple math of OP5/2=6 mo option period. The option period is for CLINs 4001-4020. OP5 does not include CLINs 4001-4004 for MEIs. |
Is the Government requesting MEIs be delivered in OP 5 and the Optional Period? If so, will the Government’s instructions include CLINs 4001 - 4004 in OP 5?
Option to Extend Services will be removed from this requirement. This change will be reflected in the final RFP.
| 12 |
| W31P4Q-20-R- 0015 DRAFT RFP |
| Section B |
| For MEI CLINs related to the B-KIT there is no contract type specified. |
Is the B-KIT CLIN an FPIF CLIN like the other MEIs?
Yes. The contract type for B-Kit will be included in the final RFP.
| 13 |
| Attachment 19-Section L |
| Section L, page 28 |
| The Draft RFP requires us to state whether the proposed rates represent a FPRP, FPRR, or FPRA, and note the date of the agreement. If the proposed direct labor rates are based on a FPRP, FPRR, or FPRA, the offeror shall provide a copy of the FPRP, FPRR, or FPRA. The direct labor basis and copy has been addressed in the instructions for direct labor and would appear not belong in the indirect rate section. Should this language be removed since it is duplicative? |
| This is typo and will be revised so that one instance addresses direct labor rates and the other indirect rates. |
| 14 |
| Attachment 19-Section L |
| Section L, page 28 |
| The Draft RFP states if the proposed indirect rates are not equal to those included in the FPRP, FPRR, or FPRA, the offeror shall provide an indirect rate proposal to include a detailed listing of the pool expenses and the base amounts by contract effort. Due to differences in FPRP (CY) rates and the contract year (GFY) the government will need a supporting file that shows the contract year by month to validate our rates tie back to the FPRP by calendar year. May we submit such an attachment as part of our cost/price volume? |
| Yes, if the offeror determines the file is needed to support the realism of the offeror’s proposed rates. The USG does intend to include a pricing template for offerors to show the build-up of the offeror’s proposed prices. The pricing template will include a worksheet for the offeror to convert its Contractor Fiscal Year (CFY) rates to the rates that correspond to the contract’s period of performance. |
| 15 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP |
FRP Statement of Work and Attachment 21- Task Order 0001 Statement of Work
| Small Business |
| There are duplicative requirements across SOWs that call out requirements for Small Business. We assume the subcontracting plan, commitment document, reporting, etc. are all governed by the base contract. Is this correct? |
| Small Business requirements are reported at the Base IDIQ Contract and not each individual task order. The final RFP will be updated to incorporate this change. |
| 16 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP |
FRP Statement of Work
| Paragraph 5.11.8 |
| First Sentence in Att 1, 5.11.8 states that the contractor shall implement and maintain a manufacturing ESS program to include electrical and electronic components … and MEI Level. The second to last sentence in the paragraph states "The Government may recommend performing ESS at the MEI level. Is MEI Level ESS a requirement, as stated in Sentence 1, or a potential recommendation to be bid later as a cost and schedule impact? |
Request that the Government clarify the first sentence and confirm ESS of fully assembled MEI's is a recommendation.
The objective of the ESS requirement is to force latent defects (hidden or concealed) to patent defects (discovered by reasonable inspection methods). Some manufacturers may find it is more effective to perform ESS at the MEI level rather than at the LRU level. That is the intent of the first sentence, i.e. MEI level ESS is not required. Regarding the sentence, “The Government may recommend performing ESS at the MEI level.” The sentence should read, “The contractor may recommend performing ESS at the MEI level.” This requirement should be bid to and address cost and schedule impacts. This will be updated in the final RFP.
| 17 |
| Attachment 03-GFP List, Attachment 19-Section L, and Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| GFP List Row 33, Section L, Section 2, Key Item #4, IBCS LRIP FRP SOW paragraph 5.14.2 |
| The GFP list identifies Acceptance Test Special Test Equipment as EOC-Lite, Relay-Lite and Sims Architecture to Replace IPTA and ITEx for Acceptance Testing. Section L requires bidders to identify the acceptance test equipment and software needed. SOW requires contractors to develop and maintain Acceptance Test Equipment for each MEI. |
Are Acceptance Test Equipment in Section L and Attachment 1 equivalent to Acceptance Test Special Test Equipment identified in Attachment 3 Section L requires an all-inclusive list of test equipment needed to meet the requirements of SECTION II - Subfactor 2: Production Maturity, a portion of which is provided as GFP to include the items in Attachment 3, Row 33 (EOC Lite, Relay Lite, and Sims Architecture). Therefore, it is a requirement for the contractor to provide in-process test equipment, etc. to satisfy requirements defined in Section L.
| 18 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Paragraph 5.14.3 |
| SOW requires that the contractor shall develop and maintain Acceptance Test equipment for each MEI. |
Is it the Government’s intention that this requirement be levied against each MEI type, rather than each individual MEI?
The USG’s intent is the Acceptance Test Equipment should be for “MEI type” rather than “MEI.” The intent is to use the Acceptance Test Equipment along with MEI specific (EOC or Relay) Acceptance Test Procedure in order to perform acceptance testing of each individual MEI.
| 19 |
| W31P4Q-20-R- 0015 DRAFT RFP and Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Section 9 and Paragraph 6.1.1 |
| "The contractor shall produce and supply recommended spares based on the SESAME output and DoD Authorized Stockage List (ASL) use AR 710-2 for guidance. The spares shall consist of depot and field level spares and repair parts that are selected based on predicted frequency of failures". 6.1.1 states updates and deliver SESAME which would define what the spares are. |
Was an initial SESAME performed to identify the spares list, and will that be provided to bidders?
The Government can assist the contractor with this effort. The use of SESAME (Selected Essential-Item Stock for Availability Method) is mandated by the Department of the Army (AR 700-18) for Initial Provisioning Requirements Determination. An initial SESAME run was conducted for this program early-on. SESAME is a multi-echelon, multi-indenture inventory model. It determines the optimal range and depth of spares and repair parts at all locations in the support structure in order to meet a weapon system readiness target or budget constraint.
| 20 |
| Attachment 21- Task Order 0001 Statement of Work |
| Paragraph 4.14.3 |
| STE Clarification |
It is our assumption that the HCS and the EOC lite and Relay lite which are GFE and will not be considered STE. Do you concur?
HCS, EOC Lite, and Relay Lite ARE STE
| 21 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP |
FRP Statement of Work
| Paragraph 8.1.18 |
| Temporary storage of hardware end items. We interpret this to mean the contractor stores the equipment at contractor facility up to and not to exceed 30 days after DD250; is this correct? |
| Yes |
| 22 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP |
FRP Statement of Work
| Section 8 |
| We interpret the SOW/RFP to imply that fielding is expected to begin halfway through Option Period 1. Is this correct? |
No. Fielding support will be specifically called out via task order. Physical fielding support of the MEIs is not a requirement in TO1, subsequent TOs will address fielding support.
| 23 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP |
FRP Statement of Work
| Paragraph 6.5 |
| PMCS The contractor will provide PMCS activities only on GFP, prior to fielding the MEI. |
Is the Contractor required to perform support (PMCS, trouble- shooting and parts/sparing support) for the LHS MEI?
Yes. For the LHS MEI, the Contractor shall properly maintain Government property through Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services (PMCS) in accordance with the appropriate support manual. The Contractor’s maintenance program shall enable the identification, disclosure, and performance of normal and routine preventative maintenance and repair.
| 24 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP |
FRP Statement of Work
| Paragraph 8.1.18 |
| Supply Support |
What is the method required to provide supply data to the Army’s ERP? Will the USG continue to use COLTS for contract/contractor supply management?
The contractor is allowed to use contractor based logistic supply products if it meets the requirements of the LOGSA and GCSS-Army.
| 25 |
| Attachment 21- Task Order 0001 Statement of Work |
| Paragraph 4.14.3 |
| HCS |
Can bidders propose an alternate sell-off solution to reduce reliance on HCS?
No
| 26 |
| W31P4Q-20-R- 0015 DRAFT RFP |
| Section I, 1-158 FAR 52.232-16 Progress Payments |
| The Government has included FAR 52.232-16, Progress Payments in the DRFP however, FAR 52.232-32 Performance Based Payments is the more practical clause for production contracts. An approved Technical Data Package (TDP) exists for the deliverables required in this RFP. As a result, events during the production process and their timing can be easily identified for the establishment of PBPs. As noted in the DoD PBP Guide, PBPs enable the establishment of thought out meaningful events in the production process and reinforce a contractor’s motivation to accomplish the entire production effort in a prompt and efficient manner. |
Request the Government consider changing the payment structure for this effort from Progress Payments to Performance Based Payments.
The Government will not be adding performance based payments to the solicitation; however, once the offeror that is awarded the contract has performed successfully after LRIP, the Government will consider performance payments at that time.
Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work
Paragraph 4a, 4
| Please clarify if USG intends for Bidders to procure, build, fabricate, integrate, test and deliver the MEI/hardware and CIDS in addition to USG delivering IBCS Technical Data Package (TDP)? CIDS and TDP are data items, did USG inadvertently exclude the MEI/hardware deliverables? |
| Procuring, building, fabricating, integrating, testing and delivering IBCS Hardware end items IAW CIDS and IBCS Technical Data Package (TDP). IBCS systems IAW Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense (AIAMD) System of Systems (SoS) (MIS-PRF-56500) (Attachment 02) is provided as a reference only. |
| 28 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
Paragraph 4b, 4
| Please provide clarification if the USG intends to use Task Orders for specific requirements not defined in Attachment 01 SOW? Current direction in this section and in other parts of the RFP appears to be open ended. |
| The USG will execute specific requirements in Task Orders. Specific requirements have been defined for Task Order 1 but not for following ordering periods. |
| 29 |
| Attachment 21 - Task Order 0001 Statement of Work |
Paragraph 5.4.1, 23 Please provide clarification on what the cited Field Service Representatives Total of 10 = 9+1 represents in terms of roles and responsibilities? Clarification will allow Bidders to mature staffing plans in preparation for Final RFP.
As it pertains to the Field Service Representatives (Total of 10 = 9+1). This is the base number (or minimum amount) of FSRs that would be needed to support IBCS activities and a Battalions worth of IBCS assets. Activities include Test, Qual, GSIL, TSIL, and Logistics activities (training, log demo, etc.,). The +1 is the Lead FSR and can act as a floater to assist with technical support. The Trouble Hotline is helpful especially when managing a small density of FSRs. Historically, if/when performing 24/7 operations on a Battalions worth of assets a surge (or increase) of FSR’s has been needed. The surge increase has been approx. (6ea – 8ea) FSRs on 12 hour rotation shifts.
| 30 |
| Attachment 21- Task Order 0001 Statement of Work |
Paragraph 5.4.2, 23
| Please provide clarification on what the cited Operational Service Representatives Total of 4 = 3+1 represents in terms of roles and responsibilities? Clarification will allow Bidders to mature staffing plans in preparation for Final RFP. |
| As it pertains to the Operational Service Representatives (Total of 4 = 3+1). This is the base number (or minimum amount) of OSRs that would be needed to support IBCS activities and a Battalions worth of IBCS assets. Activities include Test, Qual, GSIL, TSIL, and Logistics activities (training, log demo, etc.,). The +1 is the Lead OSR and can act as a floater to assist with SW related issues. Historically, a surge or plus-up of OSRs has not been required. |
| 31 |
| Attachment 21- Task Order 0001 Statement of Work |
| Section 9, page 47 |
| The TDP hasn't been finalized. Please clarify the Government's rationale for Bidder's meeting the 15 month ARO delivery schedule for MEIs. |
| The USG will provide a final, common TDP to all bidders with the final RFP. The delivery schedule is based on the current user requirements for initial |
fielding. Offerors should bid to the final, common TDP and delivery schedule.
Section L of the RFP requires the offerors to demonstrate their ability to develop two ECPs based on the current IBCS design and the required changes associated with the two ECPs. After contract award, the USG will execute a Task Order against the IDIQ contract, to address additional, required design changes. After award and upon issuance of a follow on Task Order that will address additional required design changes, the contractor will have the ability to address a revised delivery schedule, if required.
| 32 |
| W31P4Q-20-R- 0015 DRAFT RFP |
| Section A-4, 2 |
| Please provide clarification on the formula for maximum quantities. |
| There is no one formula used to establish the maximum quantities. The maximum quantities are based on the known user requirements through the period of performance of the contract, to include the IBCS MEI variants required. The FMS quantities are estimates of future FMS requirements. |
| 33 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Section B, page 42 |
| Please clarify if the USG inadvertently omitted purchasing USG MEIs during this ordering period? |
| Correct. Ordering Period 5 will not be procuring MEIs. |
| 34 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
Paragraph 5.6
| Please clarify why USG deviated from the AS9102 standard and is specifying an FAI requirement when there is a 12 month lapse in production. The AS9102 standard cites a FAI being required if there has been a lapse in production of 2+ years. The 12 months requirement deviates from the standard. |
| The USG tailored the AS9102 standard to ensure all tactical hardware met system requirements after a lapse in production of 12 months or greater. |
Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work
Paragraph 5.13
| Please clarify why USG deviated from the AS9102 standard and is specifying an FAI requirement when there is a 12 month lapse in production. The AS9102 standard cites a FAI being required if there has been a lapse in production of 2+ years. The 12 months requirement deviates from the standard. |
| The USG tailored the AS9102 standard to ensure all tactical hardware met system requirements after a lapse in production of 12 months or greater. |
Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work
Paragraph 6.1, page 17 Contractor scope includes supporting design meetings for resolution of issues discovered in tes. Please consider "development" to Section 6.1, "The contractor SHALL provide engineering support for development, production, integration, test, environmental stress screening, and software load test activities, including maintenance of automation and tools used in these activities."
How can Bidders be asked to support design meetings for issue clarification found during test and respond that they are not scoped to support?
Concur with adding “development” so the requirement will read: “The contractor shall provide engineering support for development, production, integration, test, environmental stress screening, and software load test activities, including maintenance of automation and tools used in these activities.” This will be updated in the final RFP.
| 37 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Page 40 |
| Does IBCS have acceptable fault isolation and localization capability? This has a direct impact on E2C2 management for field & test support. |
| IBCS has a baseline diagnostic capability. If the USG determines more diagnostic capabilities are required, the USG Agile SW team would lead the effort with support from the HW vendor. This is captured in the IDIQ SOW section 6.4.2. |
| 38 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Section L, Vol IV - |
a), page 17
| In an effort to avoid issues with viewing contractor proposals, please provide application versions for MS Excel and/or MS Word. |
| The Government plans to use Microsoft Office 2016 |
| 39 |
| Attachment 03 – GFP List |
| NA |
| Please clarify if Bidders can add GFP to Attachment 03 that they determine are also required as part of their proposal? |
| The bidders can identify additional GFE. |
| 40 |
| Attachment 04 – Acceptance Test Plan |
| Relay and EOC |
ATPs
| Please provide timeframe for when the Final ATPs (Attachment 04) will be provided? |
| The Final ATP will be provided with the final RFP. |
| 41 |
| Attachment 06 – Obsolete Parts List |
| NA |
| The obsolete parts listed in Attachment 06 appears to be a starting point, but will need to be scrubbed by Bidders during proposal development. Are bidders obliged to select the manufacturer- recommended solution, or can they look for alternate sources? |
Need to confirm how much latitude will there be to look to alternate sources, which isn't addressed in the Attachment.
The bidder has the latitude to choose parts if they meet hardware and system performance requirements as outlined in the TDP as well as the requirements outlined in the Parts and Materials Plan to include qualification testing at the component and potentially at the system level.
Attachment 09 – R&M Prediction Report
| NA |
| Attachment 09 reflects an October 2018 technical Baseline. Will this artifact be updated and provided prior to release of FINAL RFP? Bounds Bidders work and possible estimates necessary to update the document. |
| This is the latest artifact and will not be updated prior for Final RFP. |
After award any R&M prediction updates will be addressed in follow on Task Orders
Attachment 10 - FMECA
| NA |
| Attachment 10 reflects an October 2018 technical Baseline. Will this artifact be updated and provided prior to release of FINAL RFP? Bounds Bidders work and possible estimates necessary to |
update the document.
This is the latest artifact and will not be updated prior for Final RFP.
After award any FMECA updates will be addressed in follow on Task Orders
| 44 |
| Attachment 19 – Section L |
| Section 3, Volume II |
| Please clarify if the requirement "(ii) represented a total potential value of at least $1B annually" in Section L of Attachment 19 is accurate or is the program value meant to represent a cum of contacts for the "similar to" program? The $1B/year annual requirement represents a significantly large program. Bidders may not have a single Program of Record in that amount, but may be able to meet the annual requirement on a cumulative contract value basis. |
| The Past Performance Factor is removed as a factor in this requirement. The final RFP will be updated to incorporate this change. |
| 45 |
| Attachment 21- Task Order 0001 Statement of Work |
| Paragraph 5.1.2 |
| Please confirm that DRAFT JTT Tasks (Attachment 21) will be updated and provided prior to release of FINAL RFP? The JTT data sections are listed as RESERVED in other artifacts. |
| JTT Task will be removed from TO 1 SOW in the final RFP. |
| 46 |
| Attachment 22 – Preliminary Class 1 ECP Candidates |
| JTT |
| Please confirm that DRAFT JTT Tasks (Attachment 22) will be updated and provided prior to release of FINAL RFP? The JTT data sections are listed as RESERVED in other artifacts. |
| JTT Task is removed as an ECP candidate in this requirement. |
| 47 |
| Attachment 22 – Preliminary Class 1 ECP Candidates |
| IFCN Relay NEA |
| If the incumbents Proprietary Components are cited in any of the requirements, is the requirement for all bidders to develop new/innovative design approaches that are non-proprietary? or will the incumbents Proprietary Components be provided as GFE to all bidders? |
This concern over Proprietary Information that is cited as requirements within the RFP will need to be resolved and scrubbed through the RFP artifacts.
No, the incumbents Proprietary Information will not be provided as GFE.
Yes, It is the government’s intent to pursue a nonproprietary solution for the NEA.
| 48 |
| Attachment 14-Technical Library |
| TDP |
| Was the TDP ever reconciled with the MDP? If this were not performed THEN an additional step is required to execute the incorporation of hanging paper that will align the TDP and MDP. If so, will the TDP be updated and provided prior to release of FINAL RFP? If this reconciliation is not performed THEN an additional step is required to execute the incorporation of "hanging paper" into the TDP documentation. |
| The Government did not receive nor verify the incumbent’s MDP. The TDP that was provided with the draft RFP is the same TDP that will be provided with the Final RFP, all offerors will bid to the TDP in the Final RFP. After award and upon issuance of a follow on Task Order this follow on task order will address additional required design changes, to include TDP documentation changes etc. |
| 49 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Section 5, intro |
paragraph Will maintenance and automation tools be provided with the IBCS SW delivery from USG?
Bidders need to make sure they have what they need to install the GFE SW.
Procedures on how to install GFS SW will be provided with delivery of the GFS.
| 50 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
Section 5.3 Please note that having the EOC and ICE accepted together may not be efficient. Please consider decoupling the ICE/EOC selloff. Decoupling of the ICE/EOC selloff provides more flexibility in planning the production process.
IBCS software is required for the acceptance of the ICE and EOC. Upon software loading and configuration, the EOC and ICE are coupled. As such, these must be delivered together.
| 51 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Section 5.3 |
| Attachment 01, Section 5.3 contains duplicate SHALL statements for use of Attachment 12. Kindly delete one SHALL from Attachment 04. Duplicate SHALLS are redundant. |
| Duplicate shall statements will be removed. |
| 52 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Section 6.3 |
| In the event that non-conforming GFE or the as built EOC/ICE/IFCN Design items do not reflect the final reconciled TDP, please explain how does the USG intend Bidders to account for these unknown design change discrepancies in their proposals? If the USG can only deliver what exists today (what they know), Bidders will need to roll in whatever changes are necessary in order to implement their obsolescence redesign. |
| The USG is providing a common TDP that all bidders are required to bid to. After contract award, the USG will execute a Task Order on the contract to address required design changes. Therefore, the bidders are not required to address unknown design changes in their proposals. If non-conforming GFE is provided to the bidders, the responsibility for the non-conforming GFE is the USGs not the bidders. Additionally, the USG is providing the most up to date GFE information in the common TDP that is provided to all offerors. |
| 53 |
| Attachment 13 – Training Documentation |
| NA |
| Attachment 13 directs bidders to access the incumbent's proprietary SharePoint via a hyperlink to review the TM. Will this artifact be provided as GFE prior to release of FINAL RFP? This concern over Proprietary Information that is cited as requirements within the RFP will need to be resolved and scrubbed through the RFP artifacts. |
| The Government will provide TM (Attachment 13) as GFI in the final RFP. |
Attachment 13 will be updated to remove the hyperlink in the final RFP.
| 54 |
| Attachment 22 – Preliminary Class 1 ECP Candidates |
| Tasks |
| In the overarching SOW it references (2) ECP's. In the TO SOW (3) ECPs are called out. In the supporting documents there is only data for (2) ECP's. Please clarify if per the first task order are we doing (3) ECP's or the overarching (2) ECPs? What is the order of precedence? If in the first task order the number of ECP's include drafts? Have they been started, and if so where can Bidders access the data? |
| The JTT Task will be removed from TO 1 SOW in the final RFP leaving two ECPs the bidders are being asked to address full design aspects and propose to the USG, with an ECP. The two ECPs have equal merit for evaluation purposes. |
| 55 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Section 8.1, 8.1.5, |
| Please provide clarification if the Training Annex has already been approved and generated? Where is that document? Is the offeror now bound to the scope detailed in that Annex? The Training Annex document wasn’t found in the DRAFT RFP. |
| Yes, the Training Annex is approved and generated. The Government will provide the Training Annex as GFI in the Final RFP as part of the Technical Library, Training Documentation (attachment 13). The contractor shall utilize the government provided Training Annex as a baseline for continuation of support of the requirement as outlined in Section 8.1, 8.1.5. The contractor shall be bound by the requirements in the SOW and updates to support this requirement will be reflected in the updated Training Annex via CDRL |
| 56 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Section 8.1, 8.1.6, |
| Please provide clarification if the Interim Support Annex has already been approved and generated? Where is that document? Is the offeror now bound to the scope detailed in that Annex? The Interim Support Annex document wasn’t found in the DRAFT RFP. |
| Yes, the Interim Contractor Support Annex is approved and generated. The Government will provide the Interim Contractor Support Annex as GFI in the Final RFP as part of the Technical Library (Attachment 14). The contractor shall utilize the government provided Interim Contractor Support Annex as a baseline for execution of the support requirement as outlined in Section 8.1, 8.1.6. The contractor shall be bound by the requirements in the SOW and updates to support this requirement will be reflected in the updated Interim Contractor Support Annex. |
| 57 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Section 8.1, |
8.1.7/8/9, page 33
| Please provide clarification if these Annex documents have already been approved and generated? Where are the documents? Is the offeror now bound to the scope detailed in that Annex? The Annex documents weren’t found in the DRAFT RFP. |
| Yes, the Annex documents are approved and generated. The Government will provide the Annex documents as GFI in the Final RFP. The Annex documents will be provided as part of the Technical Library (Attachment 14). The contractor shall utilize the government provided Annex documents as a baseline for execution of the support requirement as outlined in Section Section 8.1, 8.1.7/8/9. The contractor shall be bound by the requirements in the SOW and updates to support this requirement will be reflected in the updated Annex documents. |
General
General
| Per Bidder review the Training Material continues to be in development. Will Bidders be expected to take the approximate (60%) completed material and finish its development to (100%) completion? |
| All offeror’s will bid to the training material provided at Final RFP. At contract award the government will provide the 100% completed Training Material. The USG will execute a follow on Task Order on the contract to address required design changes, to include Training Material deltas/updates. |
General
General
| If Technical Manuals are completed by the incumbent? When will they be made available for review? Will they be provided to bidders as GFE prior to release of FINAL RFP? Is there a plan in place for the incumbent to complete the Technical Manuals prior to release of Final RFP? |
| The government will provide the most up to date training manuals at Final RFP. At contract award the government will provide the 100% completed Technical Manual. After award any tech/training manual updates will be addressed in follow on Task Orders. |
General
General
| Please confirm that the Training Materials are in Contractor Format. If not Contractor format, please provide a reference for the Government standard/requirement. Please identify any requirement by the user community. |
| Yes, Training Materials are in Contractor Format. At this time we do not have any requirements by the user community, as it pertains to training format. |
| 61 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Paragraph 8.5.1 |
| Will the LORA artifact that includes the Trade Studies with RAM impact statements be provided as GFE prior to release of FINAL RFP? This concern over Proprietary Information that is cited as requirements within the RFP will need to be resolved and scrubbed through the RFP artifacts. |
| Yes, the LORA artifact that includes the Trade Studies with RAM impact statements will be provided as GFI. This information will be provided in the Final RFP as part of the USG Technical Library (Attachment 14) |
| 62 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Paragraph 9.9.1 |
| Paragraph 9.9.1 combines SAR, HTS, and Fault Tree Analysis into the same document. Recommend Separating them into three separate CDRLs. Separating of the SAR, HTS, and Fault Tree Analysis document will provide the Bidders more flexibility. |
| The USG will take into consideration any proposed separation of SAR, HTS and Fault Tree Analysis. |
| 63 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Section 9.9 |
| Please specify and provide the latest revision of MIL-STD-882 prior to release of FINAL RFP. Section calls out MIL-STD-882. It is recommended that it be updated to specify 882E. |
| The USG does not intend to specify revision numbers of MIL-STDs. The bidders should assume the latest, approved revision or version of MIL-STDs apply. |
| 64 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Paragraph 8.1.4 |
| For completeness, recommend that the Annex be specified to comply with MIL-STD-1472G. MIL- STD-1472G appears to be the more accurate document to call out for 8.1.4. |
| The USG does not intend to specify revision numbers of MIL-STDs. The bidders should assume the latest, approved revision or version of MIL-STDs apply. |
| 65 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Paragraph 8.2.2 |
| SOW requires many LMI reports that are based on the current database and tools. These tools need to be provided to extract data from the LMI Database in order to properly assess a cost/schedule for development of these reports prior to release of Final RFP. Review of the current state of LMI and what tools are used is needed to bid on RFP. |
| The Government will provide the existing Logistics Product Data (LPD) as GFI in the Final RFP. The LPD will be provided as part of the Technical Library (Attachment 14). The government’s Army Material Command Logistics Data Analysis Center provides sustainment data, information technology and decision support tools that are CAC enabled and available. The offeror shall utilize https://www.logsa.army.mil/#/ to support SOW paragraph 8.2.2 requirement. |
| 66 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Paragraph 8.3.6 |
| Engineering Data For Provisioning (EDFP) requires data from suppliers/sub-contractors, which wasn’t provided in the DRAFT RFP. The EDFP data needs to be provided as GFE prior to release of the Final RFP. Assessments will need to be made if the sub-contractors/suppliers on this program have this information and if not when can it be made available to them? |
| As stated in the LRIP FRP SOW, Engineering Data For Provisioning (EDFP) will be provided by the contractor. The USG will not provide this data; however, the part numbers/drawing numbers are provided on the Indentured Parts List in the Technical Library (Attachment 14) |
| 67 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Paragraph |
8.1.9
| RCM is the basis for PMCS tasks. Request to have existing RCM analysis and the PM tasks developed from it provided prior to release of Final RFP. FMECA has been provided. Need to see existing RCM analysis and PM tasks developed from it. |
| RCM analysis and PM task will be provided as GFI in the Final RFP as part of the USG Technical Library (Attachment 14) |
| 68 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Paragraph |
5.11.8 ESS
| The RAM model is provided as COTS or GFE in DRAFT RFP. Please provide the ESS and Reliability Growth Plan prior to release of Final RFP. Is there more info. on what is expected to have ESS planned. Is the plan to use the same COTS suppliers for hardware? |
| The Reliability Growth Plan (CDRL A0239) will be provided in the final RFP. There is not an acceptable ESS Plan to provide. The ESS profiles are not defined by the Government. The desire is to have the contactor submit a proposed ESS plan/profile to drive latent defects to patent defects. COTS suppliers may change due to obsolescence, etc. See answer 41. |
| 69 |
| Attachment 09 –R&M Predication Report |
Paragraph 3.7
| The R&M prediction report does not include Reliability Block Diagrams (RBDs). Report indicates these will be developed, if so when will they be available and will they be provided as GFE? Report indicates these will be developed, if so when will they be available? |
| The RBD is a series block diagram except for the work stations. |
| 70 |
| Attachment 09 –R&M Predication Report |
| Paragraph |
5.3
| Will there be a design change or requirements change to be in compliance with the IFCN Relay End Item MTBF? IFCN Relay End Item MTBF requirement appears to be not in compliance at this time. |
| The contractor is required to provide an updated R&M Prediction Report to evaluate compliance of the production design to the MTBF requirement. |
| 71 |
| Attachment 09 –R&M Predication Report |
| Paragraph |
5.3
| Will there be a design change or requirements change to be in compliance with the EOC Relay End Item MTTR? EOC End Item MTTR requirement appears to be not in compliance at this time. |
| The contractor is required to provide an updated R&M Prediction Report to evaluate compliance of the production design to the MTTR requirement. However, the LMD results may indicate a change in design or requirement is needed. |
| 72 |
| Attachment 09 –R&M Predication Report |
| Paragraph |
5.3
| Will there be a design change or requirements change to be in compliance with the IFCN Relay End Item MTTR? IFCN Relay End Item MTTR requirement appears to be not in compliance at this time. |
| The contractor is required to provide an updated R&M Prediction Report to evaluate compliance of the production design to the MTTR requirement. However, the LMD results may indicate a change in design or requirement is needed. |
| 73 |
| Attachment 09 –R&M Predication Report |
| Paragraph 4.1 |
| Will there be a design change or requirements change to be in compliance with the BIT End Item MTBF? BIT End Item MTBF requirement appears to be not in compliance at this time. |
| The LMD results may indicate a change in design or requirement is needed. |
| 74 |
| Attachment 09 –R&M Predication Report |
| Paragraph |
4.1
| FDFI requirement not assessed in the report. Request current Capability Assessment in order to assess FDFI requirements. Will there be a design change or requirements change for the FDFI to be in compliance? |
| The LMD results may indicate a change in design or requirement is needed. |
| 75 |
| Attachment 09 –R&M Predication Report |
| Paragraph |
4.1
| Prognostics requirement not assessed in the report. Request current Prognostics Assessment in order to assess FDFI requirements. Is there on-going data collection on targeted LRUs to help meet this requirement? Does it change the maintenance expenditure limit or threshold? |
| There is no prognostic data available. |
| 76 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Section 8.4.2 |
| Please provide clarification for the definition of "over and above" repairs? |
| Over and above would be unplanned repair/maintenance activities that may be required that is not specifically called out in the Task Order. The IDIQ SOW paragraph 8.4.2 will be revised to read: “The contractor shall obtain and submit parts & labor quotes for Government approval prior to conducting repairs not specifically identified in the task order.” |
| 77 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement of Work |
| Section 8.4.2 |
| Please provide CDRL (Forms 1423) and DIDs for all prior to Final RFP. Requires review of the CDRL documentation. |
| All DD1423 and associated DIDs will be provided in the final RFP. |
| 78 |
| Attachment 01 - IBCS LRIP FRP Statement f Work |
| Section |
8.1.4
| Please provide a preview of Human Systems Integration Annex to verify completeness and closure of actions necessary to ensure success in LRIP contract. The Human Systems Integration Annex artifact is not present in DRAFT RFP. This Annex is needed to execute the LRIP effort as the SOW references required documentation that is required for the identification of issues, outline of resolutions, and status. |
| The Government will provide the Human Systems Integration Annex documents as GFI in the Final RFP. The Human Systems Integration Annex will be provided as part of the Technical Library (Attachment 14). The contractor shall utilize the government provided Human Systems Integration Annex documents as a baseline for execution of the support requirement as outlined in Section 8.1.4. |