PMA-281_IDIQ_MAC__Industry_Day_QAs.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 17 KB Posted
- Attached to
- PMA-281 Announcement for Industry Day
- Solicitation number
- N00019-19-R-0040
About this file
This document provides details regarding a forthcoming solicitation from the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) PMA-281 program for hardware and software development and sustainment services. The multiple award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract will support ten PMA-281 programs ranging from ACAT-II to ACAT-IV, including development, integration, testing, deployment, modifications, and operations and sustainment. An industry day will be held on June 13, 2019 to provide information on PMA-281 product lines and collect questions. The solicitation is expected to result in multiple awards for hardware and software delivery orders. The response deadline for advanced industry day questions is June 3, 2019. Slides and a question and answer document will be made available following industry day.
PMA-281 IDIQ MAC Industry Day Submitted Questions and Responses
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Question_Feedback_Form_for_Solicitation_N00019-19-R-0040_8.15.2019.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Question_Feedback_Form_for_Solicitation_N00019-19-R-0040_31_Jul_2019.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| PMA-281_IDIQ_MAC_Industry_Day_Registered_Companies.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| PMA-281_Industry_Day_Q&As__(13_June_2019).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| PMA-281_Industry_Day_Slides_(June_13,_2019).pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Industry Day Q&A
| Question/Comment/Feedback | Government Response | |
| 1 | Since there us so much ceiling left on the current contract, will it be extended? If so, for how long? | The ordering period on the current IDIQ/MAC will not be extended. |
| 2 | What are the differences between the current contract and the follow-on? | Please see the Statement of Work. |
| 3 | When is the RFP anticipated to be released? | The Government anticipates releasing the RFP during 4QFY19. |
| 4 | Is there a specific tool set the Government uses for automat RT Testing? | PMA-281 currently has a contract with IDT for automated test re-test. As appropriate on individual delivery orders this tool may be provided as GFI/E. |
| 5 | How will the Government evaluate an equivalency to CMMI Level-3 if the prime does not have a certification? | While not finalized yet, the Government is considering only Prime contractor submissions for the SSWS. |
| 6 | How long will the SIL be located at the testing site and will the Government provide size/effect required for the SIL? | The SIL location, size, equipment, etc is delivery order dependent. |
| 7 | Has the PMA thought about utilizing a CI/CD (DeSee OP.) Software platform such as pivotal or Infor shift (Redhad) | The software development environment will be defined at the delivery order level. |
| 8 | Is there a limited number of Artifacts per Requirement on as many as the prime/Team has to not overload the KO? | The final RFP will identify the appropriate number of Artifacts/projects. |
| 9 | Do large businesses have to have small businesses at the MAC level and/ or the delivery order level? | Large businesses qualified under this MAC/IDIQ contract will be required to have small business subcontracting plan & goals. Small business subcontracting will apply at the delivery order level. |
| 10 | Many of the data and digital transformation components are commercially available. Will the Government provide a vehicle for providers of commercial items to compete as primes? | Commercial products will be competed amongst MAC holders. |
| 11 | Generally, how is the Government thinking about complying with commercial item preference? | Please clarify the question. |
| 12 | Will the contracting approach accommodate bidders who provide commercial items (e.g. with regards to requiring labor rates and other information that implies a developmental approach)? | Please see the answer to question number 10. |
| 13 | The proposed cost realism evaluation representing a software development approach will prevent commercial items from being offered. We recommend in addition to labor rates, the Government provide an evaluation for "material" or "ODC" markup in order to allow for solutions to be differed under specific orders. | The details on the cost/price will be finalized and provided in the Final RFP. |
| 14 | Will the Government please clarify which requirements under the SOW/draft RFP do not apply to commercial vendors? | The draft SOW provides the Government's overarching requirements. Individual delivery orders will provide specific details to the individual procurements. |
| 15 | What are the Governments planned data rights requirements? Does the Government intend to incorporate commercial item data rights clauses? | Individual delivery orders will provide specific details to the individual procurements. |
| 16 | What is date you are pushing to release RFP? | Please see the answer to question number 3. |
| 17 | Will SSWS include projects from teammates or only from prime? | Please see the answer to question number 5. |
| 18 | How is PMA 281 planning to coordinate with NAVSEA and PMS406 for the Unmanned Maritime Autonomy Architecture (UMAA) for UUV and UAV mission management? | Coordination is underway between PMS-406 and NAVSEA on UUVs. |
| 19 | How much UXS integration has occurred under CCS increment 1? | Please see slide 21 on the Industry Day brief. |
| 20 | What is the PMA 281 view on differences between mission planning and mission management at the theater, operational group (by CUBGG) and individual platform levels? | Please see slides 8-10 on the Industry Day briefing; the PMA-281 vision is to have seamless transition between all levels of control. |
| 21 | How is PMA 281 planning to deal with UCS-MDE? (i.e. Unmanned controls systems- Maritime domain extensions) | Coordination is underway between PMS-406 and NAVSEA on UCS-MDE integration. |
| 22 | As autonomy moves from remotely piloted operations toward executive control, what consideration has PMA 281 given to a battle management language that enables machine to machine, Syntactical precise communications THA support unambiguous promulgation of commanders intent? | Please clarify the question. |
| 23 | Can SB awardees also be a teammate on LB award? | Yes, at the delivery order level. However, caution must be taken if one bids becomes routine, on-ramping/off-ramping may occur. |
| 24 | Will NGNMPS be a program that potentially uses OTAs or MTAs? | The NGNMPS acquisition strategy is TBD at this time. |
| 25 | Can a classified SOW or classified CDRLs be developed as part of our proposal? | At this time, the Government does not anticipate a classified SOW at the MAC/IDIQ level. Future Delivery Order SOWs will be developed based on individual requirements and security classification guides. |
| 26 | Can we receive the Power Point Presentations through FBO.gov? (from Captain Mitchell) | Slides presented at the PMA-281 IDIQ/MAC Industry Day has been posted via FBO.gov. |
| 27 | What will be the title/name of the opportunity once it comes out on FBO? | Searches in FBO.gov should use N00019-19-R-0040. |
| 28 | Given the technical breadth of the PMA-281 programs that will likely be solicited under this MAC ID/IQ contract, the plan for four Large Business prime awardees seems to unnecessarily limit competition. Will the Government consider increasing the number of planned Large Business awards from four to eight? | The Government reserves the right to add prime contractors as deemed necessary in order to sustain the competitive environment for awarding the delivery orders. |
| 29 | Software Reuse Planned vs. Actual and New Software Planned vs. Actual metrics are not consistently tracked across all DoD software development programs and are difficult to substantiate. We recommend removal of this requirement from the SSWS. | The Government is taking this question under consideration. |
| 30 | The SOW paragraph 3.2.2 and 3.8 refer to contractor requirements to implement an Open Architecture. How does PMA 281 plan to accommodate the requirements of the PMS 406 Unmanned Maritime Autonomy Architecture (UMAA) Architecture Design Description (ADD) with currently evolving communications interfaces to and from UxS vehicle autonomy functions? | Please see the answer to questions 18 and 22. |
| 31 | Reference SOW paragraphs 3.2.3 "Requirements Traceability" and paragraph 3.15.1 "Life Cycle Logistics refer to the "system performance specification". The Common Control System Software Performance Specification is specific to Unmanned Air Systems. Shouldn't the SOW specify a task to update the Control System Software Performance Specification to include other UxS vehicles? | The draft SOW covers all PMA-281 activities. Actual details and performance specifications will be included in individual delivery orders. |
| 32 | SOW paragraph 3.2.4.1 requires delivery of a complete System Model (SM) by the contractor that includes definition of interfaces and functions of all services including all published and subscribed messages. Under what conditions can PMA 281 provide access to the existing CCS system model? | The draft SOW covers all PMA-281 activities. The System Model (SM) identified in paragraph 3.2.4.1 is applicable to all PMA-281 program requiring architecture modeling. The requirements for SM will be identified at the delivery order. |
| 33 | SOW paragraph 3.8.4 requires the contractor to provide System Integration Laboratory (SIL) network connectivity via via the Defense Research and Engineering Network (DREN) and /or the Secret DREN (S-DREN). What support will PMA 281 provide in obtaining DREN/SDREN access? | If S-DREN connectivity is required in individual delivery orders, the Government will sponsor the Contractor in obtaining connectivity hardware and network access. |
| 34 | What is the anticipated scope of the Next Generation Mission Planning System? (slides 9-16 of Industry day brief) Is it a truly multi-domain planning system (i.e. multi-mission AAW, ASW, ASUW asset like AEGIS destroyers across this range of warfare domains) or is it focused exclusively on Naval Air Missions? | The scope of NGNMPS is TBD. |
| 35 | From the NavMPS Top level Schedule on Slide 16 of the Industry Day package there appeared to be a Framework under development that will support JMPS-M, JMPS-E, and NGNMPS development. Is technical design information available for this common Framework, and is it in fact common? Can organization gain access to this information independent of, or before IDIQ-MAC award? | There is a common framework and will not be provided before contract award. |
| 36 | Who is developing the CCS System Integration and Test Lab shown in slide 24 of the Industry day package? | The current CCS system integrator was awarded under contract N00019-15-D-0014/N0001918F2440 to Raytheon. Follow on system integration is TBD. |
| 37 | On slide 52/55/56 of the industry day package section 9.1.1 is referred to. What document does this section reside to and how do we see the details? | Section 9.1.1 is a draft RFP section L paragraph number. The actual paragraph number will be provided in the final RFP. |
| 38 | Reference slide 52. Question regarding experience developing architecture models cites "industry-based and consensus-based tools." Please clarify these terms by providing specific examples of both industry-based tools and consensus-based tools. | Examples of industry-based and consensus-based tools will be include in the SSWS acceptable data artifacts. |
| 39 | On slide 54 of the industry day package it refers to accuracy of software size estimation at the beginning and end of the project. What is the method for evidence (internal tracking spreadsheets or is there some other format required)? | The final Section L SSWS and representative data artifacts will be presented in the final RFP. |
| 40 | On slide 55 of the industry day package it refers to the establishment of a help desk. Recommend specifying levels of support, numbers of users, types of services or other help desk functions. support etc. | Level of support, types of services, etc. will be defined in individual delivery orders. |
| 41 | Reference slide 8. How will the SSWS and its content be structured to assess the ability of offerors to deliver innovations that improve quality, increase iteration speed, and reduce iteration cost? | The appropriate questions will be utilized in the SSWS for the Final RFP. Opportunities to propose innovations and risk reducers may be addressed at the delivery order level. |
| 42 | Reference slide 8. How will the SSWS and its content be structured to assess multi-domain, mission management capabilities of offerors? | The Government is taking this question under consideration. |
| 43 | Reference slide 45 and 46. Recommend adding question to SSWS that assesses the offerors ability to reduce rework and iteration cost. | The Government is taking this question under consideration. |
| 44 | Given that CCS is designated as common control system for all UxVs, recommend adding question to SSWS assessing offeror experience developing or demonstrating multi-domain mission planning, mission management and vehicle control systems. | The Government is taking this question under consideration. |
| 45 | Reference slide 44. Recommend adding question to SSWS assessing offeror's experience implementing automated testing during software development and early integration. | The Government is taking this question under consideration. |
| 46 | Reference slide 44. Recommend adding question to SSWS assessing offeror's experience implementing multi-level security products and solutions. | The Government is taking this question under consideration. |
| 47 | Recommend adding question to SSWS addressing experience participating in UMAA working groups for unmanned maritime vehicles? | The Government is taking this question under consideration. |
| 48 | Recommend adding question to SSWS assessing offeror's experience implementing modern software architectures using continuous integration/continuous delivery pipelines, automated builds, containers, virtualization | The Government is taking this question under consideration. |
| 49 | Recommend adding question to SSWS assessing offeror's experience implementing cybersecurity features into architecture and continuous integration/continuous deployment pipeline to improve cyber resiliency. | The Government is taking this question under consideration. |
| 50 | When does NAVAIR anticipate release of the RFP? | Please see the answer to question number 3. |
| 51 | How many relevant experience projects used to complete the SSWS are required to have been performed by the prime contractor? | The final RFP will identify the number of SSWS Relevant projects. |
| 52 | How many relevant experience projects performed by a teammate or subcontractor can be used to complete the SSWS? | Please see the answer in question number 5. |
| 53 | When submitting documentation in response to the RFP, will offerors be limited to: Prime contracts or will performance as a subcontractor be permitted? | TBD at this time. The final RFP will identify whether team member corporate experience and/or past performance will be accepted. |
| 54 | Contracts performed by the prime offeror or will the inclusion of performance by subcontractor team members also be permitted? | Please see the answer to question number 5. |
| 55 | At the industry day, it was stated that the submission of spreadsheets will not be permitted. Does this mean that if a deliverable on a task was a spreadsheet that it must be submitted as a PDF, or does this mean that the deliverable not permitted to be used as proof of delivery? Or if there’s a different interpretation of this guidance, what is it? | The format of SSWS Data Artifacts will be clearly defined in the final RFP. |
| 56 | Will the self scoring worksheet only include the Prime’s capabilities or will the Prime score both prime and subcontractor capabilities? | Please see the answer to question number 5. |
| 57 | How will classified documentation to support the self scoring worksheet be submitted to the Government? | To the maximum extent practicable responses to the SSWS should be kept at the unclassified level. Should classified responses be necessary, the RFP will identify an appropriate mailing address where to send classified materials and the submission will be handled. |
| 58 | SOW 3.2.4.1 on Page 16 states that the Contractor shall deliver a complete System Model (SM). Is this for NavMPS, CCS, TMPC, CMBRE? If so what is the delivery schedule for these? | Details System Model development and requirements will be submitted at the delivery order level. It is possible for each PMA-281 project to have different System Models will different delivery dates. |
| 59 | SOW 3.8.2 on page 26, paragraph 2 calls for a Reference (TBD) for the CMMI 3. Has this reference been made available? | This reference was removed from the Statement of Work. |
| 60 | SOW 3.8.2 on page 26, paragraph 5 Could the Government provide clarification on the following statement “The RBR does not replace the overall program SSR, PDR, and CDR”. What would the content of the SSR, PDR, and CDR SETRs look like since most of the artifacts would be created during the Agile Sprints and not before? | The content of SSR, PDR, and CDR is explained in NAVAIRINST 4355.19F. |
| 61 | Will the Government provide requirements, existing design and test documents for the CCS, NavMPS, AWSI, and TMPC as GFI to support proposal prior to the Final RFP release? | The SOW refers to the overarching MAC/IDIQ. References at the MAC/IDIQ level will be provided as GFI. Design, test, etc documents are deliver order specific. GFI associated with the delivery order will be provided as required. |
| 62 | To what extent will Air Wing Ship Integration (AWSI) be acquired through this MAC IDIQ | The MAC/IDIQ contract is envisioned to support all PMA-281 product lines, including Airwing Ship Integration. |
| 63 | Will the Government make awards to the 4 highest scoring small businesses, or will there be a minimum point threshold established for small business awards? | Sections L & M will define the awardee process in the Final RFP. |
| 64 | For SSWS questions which reflect general corporate experience (e.g. number of hardware / software programs performed simultaneously) - is the intent to restrict the response to only those programs reflected in the past performance references submitted? | No the intent is to determine whether a vendor is capable to handle multiple projects simultaneously. |
| 65 | Can subcontractor inputs be used when responding to the SSWS? | Please see the answer to question number 5. |
| 66 | What should be the basis for responding to SSWS questions regarding cost execution, schedule performance and size growth? Within one company, there are likely examples of all or most of the possible choices. i.e., one program might be <10% under cost, but another might have exceeded cost. Is this intended to be an average, and if so, how will the response be verified? | The Government is taking this question under consideration. |
| 67 | Will increased points be awarded in the SSWS for each past performance reference that addresses a particular question? i.e. will 2 contracts which answer "yes" to a particular contract score higher than 1 contract which has a "yes" answer? | If vendors provide sufficient data artifacts that support the SSWS questions, points will be assigned as such. |
| 68 | Will the Government allow the definition of a “contract” for the purpose of completing the self-scoring worksheet (SSWS) to include single-award IDIQ contracts wherein all task orders are evaluated through a single CPAR at the contract level? Rationale: Single award IDIQ contracts are often used for flexibility even when the work is cohesive and integrally related. Such contracts should be considered a single “contract” for the purposes of the SSWS. The fact that the Government customer considers such contracts to be a single, integrated effort is reflected by the fact that only one CPAR is issued annually. | The Government is taking this question under consideration. Details and definitions will be further explained in the Final RFP. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .