Enclosure_(1)_Q A.pdf

Enclosure (1) to Amendment 0003 N0002414R5353 Amendment 0003

# Question Question Source (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.)

Page number and paragraph header from source Government Response

Att J-9 requests 4th level WBS for RF subsystem Hardware and 3rd level WBS for other Hardware, However, Section L page 155 states 5th level WBS for all Hardware. Does Att J-9 supersede section L WBS level requirements?

Att J-9, Section L Att J-9 Table 2, page 155 Attachment J-9 is correct and WBS level requirement has been updated accordingly in Section L Tab F.3 of the RFP.

The RFP asks for the following in Volume IIB: "For CLINs 0001, 0101, 0102, 0201, 0202, 0203, 0204, 0205, 0207, 0301, 0302, 0303, 0304, 0305, 0306, 0307, 0308, 0309, and 0311, the Offeror, and their major subcontractors, shall use the Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) outlined in Attachment J-10 to provide a clear description of the hours, divided by labor category, it estimates it will required to perform its proposed approach. Similarly, the Offeror will provide a Consolidated Bill of Material, divided by CLIN, that lists all material costs associated with each CLIN." Is this meant to be a redacted BOE or a table with descriptions?

RFP Section L Page 155 Paragraph F3

Under no circumstances shall contract cost and pricing data be included in the technical volumes. Section L Tab F.3 of the RFP has been updated to instruct Offerors to submit the same CBOM that will be included in the Price VI volume with the cost data redacted.

Can Table 2 - Cost by WBS be provided electronically only?

Att J-9 N/A In accordance with table L-3-1 please submit the specified number of hardcopies and softcopies of the proposal.

DFARS 252.246-7006 Warranty Tracking of Serialized Items states "The Contractor shall provide all information required by Attachment __, Warranty Repair Source Instructions," however; the RFP did not include this attachment.

Does the Government intend to provide a Warranty Repair Source Instructions Attachment?

DFARS 252.246-7006 Warranty Tracking of Serialized Items JUN

A warranty for serialized items is not required for this effort therefore this clause is deleted.

Requirement for delivery of the SRD with the proposal is conflicting within section L pages 141, 149 and 152. Section M, pg 173 indicates a preliminary SRD will be evaluated with Tab E. Given the duration of the RFP response, can the offeror assume that the SRD can be delivered after contract award.

RFP Section L page 141 vs. page 149 vs. page 152

A preliminary SRD is required with the Offeror's proposal per RFP instructions. A final SRD is to be delivered after contract award in accordance with the CDRL timelines. The Government reserves the right to use the proposed SRD as a contractual performance specification.

The rationale for SSD Requirement 352 indicates a maximum power of 2.4 kW delivered by the SDC. However, MIL-STD-1760E Figure 17 allows 10A simultaneously through each of the three 115VAC phases. As there is no explicit SSD requirement for total 115 VAC power draw provided by the SDC, and since the SDC specification isn't being delivered as GFI until after contract award, can the Navy provide guidance on the maximum allowable 115VAC power draw through the SDC for the AMP?

J-2 SSD for AMP AOEW page 95 SSD Requirement 352

(Section 3.2.3.11) and page 110 SSD Requirement 396 (Section 3.3.2.2)

The AMP shall draw no more than 4,650 volt-amperes when 115VAC and 28VDC voltages are applied at the AMP's input power terminals and the AMP is fully operational under worst case power draw.

This requirement denotes a sensitivity requirement for pulse widths less than a specific duration. Should the required sensitivity be applicable to pulse widths in excess of this value?

J-2 SSD for AMP AOEW page 53 SSD Requirement 219 (Section 3.2.1.8.2.2)

Yes, < was a typo for >

The objective frequency range seems low based on our knowledge of threat emitters near these frequencies and the threat analyses detailed in C-10 Threat Study for a Next Generation Surface Naval Electronic Attack System. Should the objective frequency coverage requirement be centered at a higher frequency?

J-2 SSD for AMP AOEW page 42 SSD Requirement 835 (Section 3.2.1.2.2)

Yes, compounded typo needs to be corrected in SSD, correction is classified and thus not in this document. Edits needed to both requirement and rationale.

Is it the government's intention to provide the document listed in this paragraph in a further GFI delivery?

C-13 2014-07-02 (S-NF) AOEW

DRM v.1.doc Page 8, Lines 154-156

The ONI Foreign Naval Capabilities handbook is available on SIPRnet, C-STAR will not be provided.

Should the ES sensitivity be defined as 2 separate cases, analogous to the 2 EA sensitivity requirement cases? J-2 SSD for AMP AOEW p.51, SSD Requirement 215 (Section

3.2.1.8.1.1) No, the specified sensitivity is to be independent of beam shape.

11 Should column 2 be greater than column 3 by 6 dB for every row? J-2 SSD for AMP AOEW p.47, SSD Table 3-3 Yes.

# Question Question Source (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.)

Page number and paragraph header from source Government Response

“A complete description of the arrays is beyond the scope of this document; here a cursory overview of the Lincoln Labs design will be presented.” The GFI goes on to say, … “Only a brief description of the arrays is provided below.

Additional details of the array designs are available from MIT Lincoln Laboratory”.

To best leverage this Government investment, can the contractors get or have access to additional GFI covering the NGCM FNC work scope including but not limited to the following areas as delineated in the GFI:

NRL – Converters, Receivers, POD, Power (Requirements, Designs and Performance Data) MIT-LL – Arrays and associated RF designs (Requirements, Designs and performance Data)

Can the Government provide the additional GFI details of the NRL and MIT -LL designs, and performance data, and or provide Contractor access to that data?

Overview of the Next Generation Countermeasures for Ship Missile Defense Future Naval Capabilities Program (U)

p. 3 Introduction and Background (U)

No additional GFI will be provided.

The Transportable Electronic Warfare Module (TEWM) is identified as NRL developed and packages the NGCM electronics for Shipboard EA.

Can the government provide additional details on the NRL developed TEWM system and/or provide Contract access to that data?

Overview of the Next Generation Countermeasures for Ship Missile Defense Future Naval Capabilities Program (U)

p. 26 Waveform Demonstrations (U)

No additional details will be provided.

The RFP requires bidders to include a cross of the Classified SSD to the Classified Proposal Volume with every volume (3rd Paragraph). Would the government consider making the Classified CRM a requirement for inclusion in the Classified Volume only?

RFP

Page 143, Cross Reference Matrix (CRM), 2nd paragraph, 2nd bullet;

AND same page, 3rd paragraph

Offerors are instructed to submit cross-reference matrices in accordance with Section L of the RFP. There should be no classified information in any of the cross-reference matrices.

The RFP requires 2 CRMs; one for crossing the solicitation and one for crossing the SSD and SOW to the bidders proposal. Would the government consider changing the requirement to 3 CRMs as follows: 1) Solicitation crossed to bidder's proposal; 2) SSD crossed to bidders Classified Volume; and 3) SOW crossed to bidders proposal OR would the government accept one CRM for combined solicitation/SOW and one CRM for the SSD (to be included in the classified volume only)?

RFP

Page 143, Cross Reference Matrix

(CRM), 2nd paragraph; 2 numbered sub-paragraphs

Section L remains as-is regarding the cross-matrices requirements.

Block 9 states for offeror to provide the original proposal and 8 copies; Section L Table states 8 copies (assume original plus 7). How many copies in addition to the original proposal does the Government require? RFP Section A, Block 9 and Section L, page 140, Table L-3-1

In addition to the original proposal the Government requires 7 copies.

Block 9 is updated to reflect submission of one original proposal and seven copies of the proposal.

Paragraph F.3, in the last sentence, requires bidders to "….. provide a Consolidated BOM, divided by CLIN, that lists all material costs….". Does the Government want potential cost information included in the Technical Volume? RFP Section L, page 155, F.3:, second paragraph, last sentence

Under no circumstances shall contract cost and pricing data be included in the technical volumes. Section L Tab F.3 of the RFP has been updated to instruct Offerors to submit the same CBOM that will be included in the Price VI volume with the cost data redacted.

Table L-3-1 limits the offeror Volume III response to 20 pages. Section L details for the Management Volume includes requirements for the entire program from startup through LRIP, and more than 60 individual response details. Will the government increase the page limit for Volume III Tab G and H responses to allow offerors the space to respond thoroughly to the RFP requirements?

RFP

Section L, page 140, Table L-3-1, Volume II Management Approach, Page Limit 20; and Section L, page 155-158, Volume III, Management

Approach

The Volume III Management Approach page limit has increased by 15 pages from 20 pages to 35 pages. Table L-3-1 has been updated accordingly.

# Question Question Source (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.)

Page number and paragraph header from source Government Response

The RFP requires bidders to "…describe the functionality of the software/firmware to meet the requirements specified in the SSD…" We believe this response would be classified and should be removed from the unclassified Management Volume. Will the Government clarify their expectations for this requirement?

RFP Section L, page 156, G.2, Second paragraph, first sentence

Computer system methodologies are unclassified per section 9A4 of the AOEW SCG (GFI item U-67). Even the software code itself is only classified to the level of information revealed in it. A functional description should be unclassified.

The SOW requires the delivery of "…three AMP Interface Emulators". Would the government please clarify where the contractor is to deliver the emulators? SOW Section 3.2, page 54, first paragraph, second sentence.

The emulators are part of Option 0101. Section F in the RFP identifies three locations for delivery for Options 0101.

What is the assumed "Authority to Proceed" date for the contract? (required for IMS development). RFP General

The assumed "Authority to Proceed" is defined as the anticipated contract award date which can be found in Attachment J-11 - Master Program Schedule.

The OPTION TO INCREASE QUANTITY section lists the "Latest Option Exercise Dates" for each CLIN. Are there "No Earlier Than Option Exercise Dates" for Each CLIN?

RFP Section I, pages 108 and 109, 52.217-7 There are no ""No Earlier Than Option Exercise Dates" for each CLIN.

CDRL B081 indicates the preliminary Maintainability/Testability Demo Test Plan is due at CDR, which occurs in 2017. CDRL B112 indicates the Maintainability/Testability Demo Test Report is due NLT 30 days prior to CDR.

Attachment J-11 AOEW AMP Program Schedule indicates that the actual M- DEMO occurs in FY19 after CDR and flight test. Would the Government please clarify expectation and timelines for the M-Demo?

Attachment J-1 AOEW SOW, Attachment J-11. Section 3.2.6.19 M-DEMO

CDRL B112 has been corrected to read "The Contractor shall submit the Maintainability/Testability Demonstration Test Report no later than thirty (30) days after the Maintainability/Testability Demonstration Test."

SOW section 3.1.2 states: The government will provide the Contractor access to the NAS Patuxent River Anechoic Chamber for the purposes of conducting integration design development tests of an antenna with the host platform. The Contractor should plan for two (2) test events in the chamber. Additional test events, if required, shall be negotiated with the government. A minimum of 1 year advance notice is required to schedule use of the chamber. As this paragraph is a part of CLIN 0001 Preliminary Design and Att J-11 AOEW AMP Program Schedule shows PDR occurring less than 1 year from contract award, does the scheduled dates in our proposal IMS constitute 1 year advanced notification with NAVAIR to schedule the chamber?

RFP, Attachment J-1 AOEW SOW SOW Section 3.1.2, page 12, next to last paragraph; RFP Attachment J-11

AOEW AMP Program Schedule

No, schedule after award per GFI, U-70, Interface Control Plan. It is possible that the chamber may be scheduled with less than one year notice, but one year notice is recommended for planning purposes. It is recommended to book two events prior to CDR to ensure access in the event of unforeseen issues with meeting the scheduled reservation. The government views CDR as the opportunity to present chamber results in support of design.

Will the Government please identify which section of the proposal the Section K Reps and Certs are to be incorporated?

RFP

Page 117 Section K - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of

Offerors

The Offeror's completed Section K shall be included in its Cost/Price Proposal. in accordance with Section L of the RFP. The completed Section K may be included anywhere in the Offeror's cost/price proposal as long as the location is clearly identified in the table of contents and subsequent proposal.

The level of detail required for invoices is significant and not necessary for a Contractor with an approved billing system. Will the Government replace clause HQ G-2-0009 with FAR 52.216-7 and 52.216-10. Section I of the AOEW RFP already contains FAR 52.216-7.

RFP

Page 87; HQ G-2-0009 Supplemental

Instructions Regarding Electronic Invoicing (NAVSEA) (SEP 2012)

HQ G-2-0009 is a supplemental clause that must be included when using the clause at 252.232-7006 and will remain in the contract.

This clause may not represent a true account of what the average hourly expenditure rate will be once the contract is awarded. Will the Government update this clause after contract award to reflect an accurate average rate of expenditure?

RFP

Page 89; 5252.216-9122 Level of Effort (DEC 2000) (Applicable to

Items 0205 and 0309)

Clause 5252.216-9122 will not be updated after the contract award. The LOE is stipulated in the contract and clause includes language that reads "rate of man-hours per month may fluctuate in pursuit of the technical objective."

# Question Question Source (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.)

Page number and paragraph header from source Government Response

Would the Government please provide the Supplemental 7017-CRL (Commercial Restrictions List) referenced in this clause?

RFP Page 58; If exercised Item 0102

If the Offeror is asserting any commercial restrictions on data then the list of items needs to be submitted in accordance with DFARS 252.227- 7017. Supplemental 7017-CRL (Commercial Restrictions List) is a list provided by the Offeror to the Government as supplemental information regarding its identified Noncommercial Technical Data (TD), Noncommercial Computer Software (CS) and Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation (CSD) .

Paragraph (d) references a "Director, E Business Division" point of contact.

Would the Government please provide contact information for this reference? RFP

Page 69; Use of Navy Support Contractors For Official Contract Files

(NAVSEA) (APR 2004)

Director for E Business is Mr. Randal Onders; randal.onders@navy.mil.

Phone: 202-781-3678

Line Item 15 imples that the Government will provide access to the Owego Avionics SIL. Will the Government coordinate access to the Owego SIL facility referenced and will advance notifications be required? Will bidders have access to the SIL during Preliminary Design and EMD?

Attachment J-5 GFE Item # 15.

The Government will coordinate access to the Owego Avionics SIL and bidders will have access to the SIL during Preliminary Design and EMD as described in Attachment J4 - GFI U-70 - Interface Control Plan.

SEP Section 2.1.3 discusses Interface Coordination Working Group membership and lists two contractors, " … The AMP Prime Contractor (TBD)", and the "AMP to MH-60R/S integration Contractor (TBD)". Are we correct to assume that MH-60 to AMP aircraft integration will be a separate and distinct contract from N00024-14-R-5353?

Item U-39 Draft AOEW Systems Engineering Plan, Attachment J-1

AOEW SOW

SEP Pages 11-12, section 2.1.3

There will be a separate contract for the aircraft modifications and the AMP contractor is responsible for the integration.

The SOW directs bidders to conduct Environmental Qualification Testing during EMD. The J-11 AOEW program schedule seems to imply environmental "EMI/RCS/Shock/Vibration" testing during Production, after EMD, in 2019.

What is the period of performance of EMD for the AOEW program?

Attachment J-1 AOEW SOW, Attachment J-11 AOEW Schedule.

SOW Sections 3.2.3.13 and 3.2.3.14, and J-11 AOEW Schedule

Environmental Qualifications identified in the SOW during EMD is for flight certifications. The EMI/RCS/Shock identified on the schedule is for ship board requirements for storage and other requirements not required for flight certification.

The AOEW Schedule indicates an approximately three year EMD plan, 2015- 2018. Will the Government provide the planned program funding profile for the AOEW EMD program?

RFP, Attachment J-11 AOEW Schedule. J-11 AOEW Schedule

No.

The RFP requires the submission of a written make-or-buy program but does not state where the program is to be included within the proposal. What section does the Government want the make-or-buy program plan to be incorporated into? RFP Section L, pages 130-131, Make or

Buy Program

A make or buy program will not be required for this effort therefore this clause and the associated clause 52.215-9,Alternates I and II, are deleted.

The RFP requires the submission of copies of proposed alternate specifications or standards, but does not state where they are to be included within the proposal.

What section does the Government want the proposed alternate specifications or standards to be incorporated into?

RFP Section L, page 129, Alternatives to Specifications or Standards

Proposed alternate specifications or standards are not required for this effort therefore this clause is deleted.

The RFP requires the submission of a Small Business Subcontracting Plan iaw FAR52.219-9, but does not state where the plan is to be included within the proposal. What section does the Government want the Small Business Plan incorporated into?

RFP Section L, page 133, Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Offerors shall reference that the Small Business Subcontract Management Plan has been submitted beneath Volume VI.4 to the Price Volume. Section L of the RFP has been updated accordingly.

The section states that "proposal submitted by Large Businesses that fail to demonstrate that at least % 5.0 of the total dollar amount of their proposal represents first tier subcontract awards to Small Business Concerns will be evaluated unfairly". There is no Small Business section of the Management Volume per Section L pages 155-158. Will the Government please clarify RFP requirements for a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

RFP Section M, Page 176, paragraph H.1

The Subcontracting Plan will not be an evaluation factor, but will be reviewed for compliance and adequacy for purposes of making a responsibility determination. Section L of the RFP has been updated accordingly.

# Question Question Source (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.)

Page number and paragraph header from source Government Response

With the requirement to bid EMD and LRIP production options, will the Government please clarify how the optional capability in SSD Sections 3.2.1.5.2 and 3.2.1.5.4 will be evaluated?

RFP, J-2 System Scope Document RFP section D.1, SSD section

3.2.1.5.2 and 3.2.1.5.4

Per Section L, Tab D4, the Offeror's proposal shall describe the growth plan to meet objective requirements as described in the SSD Attachment J-2.

Can you provide MH-60 R and S computer / CAD models to support cosite, FEKO analysis, modelling, and other aircraft environmental analysis as required by the RFP?

No additional data will be provided.

There’s a reference to a 2.4 kW power constraint in the SSD (ID 352, 3.2.3.11.3 Harmonic Distortion). Is this reference an actual requirement? If not, what is the maximum power the AOEW is allowed to draw?

Classified - attachment J-2 ID 352, 3.2.3.11.3 Harmonic Distortion

The AMP shall draw no more than 4,650 volt-amperes when 115VAC and 28VDC voltages are applied at the AMP's input power terminals and the AMP is fully operational under worst case power draw.

Section 3.2.1.3.1 and 3.2.1.3.3 provide different numbers for the same requirement. Please clarify. Classified - attachment J-2 Section 3.2.1.3.1; Section 3.2.1.3.3

Both requirements are correct as written. Greater elevation is required over the narrower azimuth and greater azimuth is required over the lower elevation.

Does this requirement allow for transmit blanking to use the receiver?

Classified - attachment J-2 section 3.2.1.6.1 This requirement does not allow for transmit blanking to use the receiver per Section 3.2.1.14.3

The last AOEW classified CD contained a .Zip file “item 16 C-3 (S) (GOV) xxxxx Block 2 DOORS_Database v9.zip”, consisting of files with .dtc extension.

We have DOORS 9.3 and don’t know of its capability to import .dtc files. Can this be provided instead as a project (.dpa) or module (.dma) export?

Classified CD NA

Yes, replacement files will be provided.

Is AMP required to support these FOV requirements regardless of the MH-60's pitch and roll? Maneuvers causing changes in pitch and roll would seem likely to be a common occurrence. What are the AMP FOV requirements with respect to changes in pitch and roll from ideal horizontal orientation? Can these FOV requirements be relaxed/suspended/adjusted to account for significant changes in pitch and roll occur?

J-2 SSD for AMP AOEW Decoy Program 07-17-2014

Pages 42-43:

3.2.1.3.1 (U) Field of View, 3.2.1.3.2

(U) Objective FOV 3.2.1.3.3 (U) Azimuth Coverage

Yes, see note in Section 3.2.1.3.1.

Field of view requirements don't change with pitch and roll.

The contents of this table are likely to change over time. If so, then is it possible to specify or bound its maximum anticipated capacity ?

J-2 SSD for AMP AOEW Decoy Program 07-17-2014

Table 3-4

Table 3-4 will not change over time, it is specific to requirement 3.2.1.8.1.2.

Is it acceptable for the AMP ES function to ignore frequency ranges within AMP's required frequency coverage which do not overlap the frequency ranges of the emitters in the AMP threat library?

J-2 SSD for AMP AOEW Decoy Program 07-17-2014

3.2.1..8.1.2 (U) Probability of

Intercept

No.

Does this timeline start when the first pulse of the received signal paints the antenna? Or, does it start once an AMP Threat Library match can be established with high confidence? It may be necessary to measure signal parameters such as PRI, PRI Type, Scan, and Scan Type before such a match can be determined. It can easily take longer than the specified timeline to measure these parameters for some threat signals.

J-2 SSD for AMP AOEW Decoy Program 07-17-2014

3.2.1.11.2 (U) Autonomous

Engagement Timeline

Timeline starts from detection, updated rationale in SSD for clarification.

What are the requirements for blanking to avoid co-site interference between AMP transmissions and the MH-60's receiver antenna?

J-2 SSD for AMP AOEW Decoy Program 07-17-2014

3.2.4.5 Transmit Power Density

Control

Vendor must meet certification requirements per 3.18.3.

Is AMP required to report friendly emitters that it detects to the SKC? Is the AMP ES function required to provide emitter activity reports to SKC for emitters which do not match any of the threats that are specified in its threat library?

J-2 SSD for AMP AOEW Decoy Program 07-17-2014

3.2.4.6 Friendly Emitter Engagement

Decision

(1) No

(2) Yes

# Question Question Source (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.)

Page number and paragraph header from source Government Response

Does this requirement impose an absolute constraint that would prevent an engagement response against a threat emitter when there is any frequency overlap with a friendly emitter? Also, does the requirement say that this constraint only applies when the SKC chooses to enable it?

J-2 SSD for AMP AOEW Decoy Program 07-17-2014

3.2.4.7 Friendly Emitter Response

(1) No

(2) Constraint applies when EW coordinator chooses to apply it, EW coordinator is not only SKC.

The contents of this table are likely to change over time. If so, then is it possible to specify or bound its maximum anticipated capacity ? J-2 SSD for AMP AOEW Decoy

Program 07-17-2014 Table 3-5

No.

What are some examples of training, test, and other simulated data that AMP can store in its track file while in the Training mode? Is AMP required to process training tracks while in the training mode?

J-2 SSD for AMP AOEW Decoy Program 07-17-2014

3.7.2.1 Training Mode

(1) Same format as actual track info.

(2) Yes

Is AMP required to support engagement against training tracks, without actually radiating while in the training mode?

J-2 SSD for AMP AOEW Decoy Program 07-17-2014

3.7.2.1 Training Mode

Yes.

Will AMP be required to process real tracks while in the training mode? J-2 SSD for AMP AOEW Decoy

Program 07-17-2014

3.7.2.1 Training Mode

Yes.

The RFP States CLIN 0205 as FY19. The SOW paragraph for CLIN 0205 describes engineering services in support of the AOEW AMP system IAW NAVSEA 5252.242-9115 TECHNICAL INSTRUCTIONS, Apr 1999, in Section H of the contract. Engineering services include, but are not limited to the following activities:

a. Providing engineering support services to the Government for flight testing land based and shipboard test events.

The Master Program Schedule (J-11) displays ground test and flight test activities beginning and ending in FY18.

Does CLIN 0205 start in FY18? or does the ground and flight test activities occur in FY19?

RFP, Attachment J-1 SOW

J-11_Master_Program_Schedule (2July2014) (2)

RFP Section B CLIN 0205

SOW 3.4 Engineering Services (OPTION CLIN 0205) first paragraph

J-11 Test and Evaluation Section

Yes, FY18.

# Question Question Source (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.)

Page number and paragraph header from source Government Response

The point of contact for Envisioneering:

Chris Secor, CPCM, CFCM Director, Contracts & Pricing Envisioneering, Inc.

5904 Richmond Hwy., Ste. 300 Alexandria, VA 22303

(p) 571-483-4128

(f) 703-317-1970 Cell: 703-980-8671 csecor@envisioneering.com

The point of contact for Technomics:

Kevin Burk kburk@technomics.net Contracts Administrator Technomics Corporation, 571-366-1457

The point of contact for MIT:

Jayme C. Selinger, J.D., CFCM Technology & Contracts Office MIT Lincoln Laboratory 244 Wood Street Lexington, MA 02420 phone: 781.981.5034 fax: 781.981.1494 Email: Jayme.Selinger@ll.mit.edu

The point of contact for JHU/APL:

John Jackson John.Jackson@jhuapl.edu

The point of contact for Phased Array Technologies:

Ashok Agrawal 10276 Wetherburn Road Ellicott City, MD 21042 Ph. 410-480-9570 Cell: 410-241-9503

The point of contact for David P Maunder Consulting:

Denee Maunder denee.maunder@dpmconsulting.com (571-248-2656)

The point of contact for Solutions Development Corporation:

Mr. John McAlexander Solutions Development Corporation 17109 Dahlgren Road King George, VA 22485 Email: john.mcalexander@sdc-world.com Tel: (540)-663-3294 ext 164

Request the contact information for the companies listed in the RFP in order to enter into non-disclosure agreements

RFP Section L RFP pg 145 USE OF NAVY

SUPPORT CONTRACTORS

Sheet1