PCS_Draft_RFP_Comments_Response_03Aug14_final.pdf

Number Date Topic RFP Reference Comment Response

1 4/29/2014 TI-16/APB-15 Definition PCS SOW Appendix A; Page B-2;

Introduction Paragraph

It is unclear as to what the TI-16/APB-15 baseline will be composed of relative to hardware and software architecture and functionality. It is shown as the ‘baseline’ in the “Example of PCS Variants and Estimated

Demand” figure (SOW Section 1.4 page 4); however, there is no description available for the TI-16/APB-15 baseline.

There is no significant changes planned for TI-16 / APB-15. App E - Section

1.5.3.6 has been updated for clarification details. SOW, Section 1-3, Section 1.4 diagram has been updated to remove TI-16 / APB-15 reference.

2 4/29/2014 Dynamic Resource

Allocation

PMS425-PCPS-001 dated 21 January

2014; Page 17; Section 3.1.1.2

Section 3.1.1.2 of the Performance Specification states that “PCS shall dynamically allocate processing and resource allocation”. It is unclear as to how the Navy will assess compliance to this requirement.

No change to PCS Performance Specification. The verification method should be stated in the Specification Requirement Verification Matrix

(SRVM) document. The government will review and approve document as stated in the CDRL A018 Specification Requirement Verification Matric

(SRVM).

3 4/29/2014 CLIN 0001 and Legacy

Definition

PCS SOW Appendix D; Page E-2;

Introduction Paragraph

It is not clear what baseline(s) are considered legacy and to be supported under CLIN 0001. The “Example of

PCS Variants and Estimated Demand” figure (SOW Section 1.4 page 4) implies TI-16/APB-15 is the legacy baseline to be supported under CLIN 0001. The above SOW paragraph does not mention support for TI-16/APB-

15 or any earlier baselines.

The SOW, Section 1-3, Section 1.4 diagram has been updated to remove

TI-16 / APB-15 reference.

4 4/29/2014 Capability Items

Without PSpec

Requirements

PCS Draft RFP; Page 130-131; Section

1.1.1 (UAV)

PCS SOW Appendix A; Page B-4;

Section 1.5 (Algorithm)

PCS SOW Appendix B; Page C-2;

Section 1.5 (spiral)

The Statement of Work specifically itemizes the following Capability Items:

• ADCAP Torpedo Spiral 5

• Alternative Targeting Algorithm Approach

There are no requirements in the Performance Specification that cover these above Capability Items.

The RFP references the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and there are no requirements specified in the

Performance Specification for this component.

The Capability Improvements for TI-16 / APB-17 (SOW; App. A; Section

1.5), TI-18 / APB-17 (SOW; App. B; Section 1.5), and TI-18/APB-19 (SOW;

App. C; Section 1.5) have been removed. The Capability Improvements requirements have been re-allocated to the SOW, Appendix D -

Engineering Services.

The RFP Volume I - Technical Proposal, Technical Approach - Section 1.1.1 has been updated from Design - Advanced Processor Build (APB) to

Design - Capability Improvements. The Capability Improvements have amplifying information and requirements provided in the RFP Volume I -

Section 1.1.1.

The PCS Performance Specification has not been updated to reflect the identified Capability Improvements: ADCAP Torpedo Spiral 5, Alternative

Targeting Algorithm Approach, and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV).

5 4/24/2014 PCS GFI – Attachment 4 Attachment 4, Information Only

Section (page 6)

Proposed Addition to the GFI list:

Latest revision of the complete DOORS requirements database from the incumbent

The TI-16 / APB-15 DOORs database will be provided as part of the GFI at

Contract Award.

6 4/24/2014 Payloads Para 1.1.1 page 130/131 The Navy should clarify whether payloads are considered for only VA Blk III/IV/V with payload tubes or if other

VLS platforms will be considered for payload applicability. The Navy should clarify whether the payload approach should consider devices launched via torpedo tubes or other available launchers (TDU etc)

As noted in SOW, Section 1 - 3, Section 1.3 Payloads are of current and future type including but not limited to: torpedoes, mines, Tomahawk cruise missiles, missiles, Modular Undersea Heavyweight Vehicles

(MUHV), unmanned undersea vehicles (UUV), unmanned aircraft systems

(UAS) and countermeasures. Payload types shall be supported on

AN/BYG-1 (V)1 - (V)10.

7 4/24/2014 Key Personnel RFP; Page 135; Section 2.1.4 - Staffing

Plan and Key Personnel

As this is an RFP for a payload control system including a new system architecture, Navy should allow for optional submission of more key personnel in key areas to show breadth of team knowledge related to e.g., weapons, payloads, launchers, Information Assurance, and weapon system safety

Acknowledged. Clarification details have been added to the RFP Section L -

Attachment 2 Personnel Job Description table.

8 4/24/2014 Period of Performance Statement of Work; Page 3; Section 1.4

– Program Phasing

The paragraph calls out a six year period of performance, but the referenced table shows a five year period of performance. Please clarify the PCS contract period of performance.

The SOW, Section 1-3, Section 1.4 has been update to five years vice six years.

9 4/24/2014 CWBS Traceability Statement of Work; Page 7; Section

3.1.3 – Contract Work Breakdown

Structure (CWBS)

Traceability is not specified ; it is unclear what traceability level is required. The SOW, Section 1-3, Section 3.1.3 has been update to include "level four

(4)".

10 4/24/2014 TI-16/APB-17 PCS

Capabilities

Statement of Work; Page B-4; Section

1.5 – System Requirements

This is the only mention of Alternative Targeting Algorithm Approach in the RFP or Statement of Work. As this is a requirement for TI-16/APB-17, a GFI document should be provided specifying the desired requirements for the Alternative Targeting Algorithm Approach.

The Capability Improvements for TI-16 / APB-17 (SOW; App. A; Section

1.5), TI-18 / APB-17 (SOW; App. B; Section 1.5), and TI-18/APB-19 (SOW;

App. C; Section 1.5) have been removed. The Capability Improvements requirements have been re-allocated to the SOW, Appendix D.

11 4/24/2014 WC Baseline

Architecture

Assessment documentation

Statement of Work; Page B-7; Section

1.5.3.6 – PCS Architecture Study and

Design

GFI document list does not appear to include the referenced WC Baseline Architecture Assessment documentation. Please add this documentation to the list of provided GFI.

The SOW, Appendix E, Section 1.5.3.6 has been updated to remove the reference.

12 4/24/2014 PCS Architecture Design technical report

Statement of Work; Page B-8; Section

1.5.3.6 – PCS Architecture Study and

Design

As removal of baseline old software language code (ADA software language) is called out as requirement for the technical report, removal of old Infrastructure (RADEX) should also be explicitly required within the technical report.

The SOW, Appendix E, Section 1.5.3.6 has added words for "approach" for the offeror to provide their approach.

13 4/24/2014 TI-18/APB-17 PCS

Capabilities

[none listed] As these are requirements for TI-18/APB-17, a GFI document should be provided specifying the desired requirements for the ADCAP Torpedo Spiral 5 and Tomahawk Post-Launch SIM capabilities.

The Capability Improvements for TI-16 / APB-17 (SOW; App. A; Section

1.5), TI-18 / APB-17 (SOW; App. B; Section 1.5), and TI-18/APB-19 (SOW;

App. C; Section 1.5) have been removed. The Capability Improvements requirements have been re-allocated to the SOW, Appendix D.

14 4/24/2014 CDRL Deliveries CDRLs; Page 18; CDRL A017 – SSS TI-16/APB-17 is the first development activity required under the PCS program. It’s not clear why a TI-16/APB-

15 CDR would be required, including the need, and associated cost, to deliver a TI-16/APB-15 SSS versus a TI-

16/APB-17 SSS delivery and CDR. The current RFP CLINs and Statement of Work do not appear to support a TI-

16/APB-15 SSS or CDR effort.

The CDRL A017 - System/Subsystem Specification (SSS) document has been updated for TI-16/APB-17 vice TI-16/APB-15.

15 4/24/2014 CDRL Deliveries CDRLs; Page 19; CDRL A018 – SRVM TI-16/APB-17 is the first development activity required under the PCS program. It’s not clear why a TI-16/APB-

15 CDR would be required, including the need, and associated cost, to deliver a TI-16/APB-15 SRVM versus a TI-

16/APB-17 SRVM delivery and CDR. The current RFP CLINs and Statement of Work do not appear to support a

TI-16/APB-15 CDR effort.

The CDRL A018 - Specification Requirement Verification Matrix (SRVM) document has been updated for TI-16/APB-17 vice TI-16/APB-15.

16 4/24/2014 CDRL Deliveries CDRLs; Page 20; CDRL A019 – SSDD TI-16/APB-17 is the first development activity required under the PCS program. It’s not clear why a TI-16/APB-

15 CDR would be required, including the need, and associated cost, to deliver a TI-16/APB-15 SSDD versus a TI-

16/APB-17 SSDD delivery and CDR. The current RFP CLINs and Statement of Work do not appear to support a TI-

16/APB-15 CDR effort.

The CDRL A019 - System/Subsystem Design Document (SSDD) document has been updated for TI-16/APB-17 vice TI-16/APB-15.

17 4/24/2014 CDRL Deliveries CDRLs; Page 21; CDRL A020 – SRS TI-16/APB-17 is the first development activity required under the PCS program. It’s not clear why a TI-16/APB-

15 SVDR would be required, including the need, and associated cost, to deliver a TI-16/APB-15 SRS versus a TI-

16/APB-17 SRS delivery and CDR. The current RFP CLINs and Statement of Work do not appear to support a TI-

16/APB-15 SRS or SVDR effort.

The CDRL A020 - Software Requirement Specification (SRS) document has been updated for TI-16/APB-17 vice TI-16/APB-15.

18 4/24/2014 CDRL Deliveries CDRLs; Page 22; CDRL A021 – SDD TI-16/APB-17 is the first development activity required under the PCS program. It’s not clear why a TI-16/APB-

15 SVDR would be required, including the need, and associated cost, to deliver a TI-16/APB-15 SDD versus a TI-

16/APB-17 SDD delivery and SDVR. The current RFP CLINs and Statement of Work do not appear to support a

TI-16/APB-15 SDD or SVDR effort.

The CDRL A021- Software Design Description (SDD) document has been updated for TI-16/APB-17 vice TI-16/APB-15.

19 4/24/2014 CDRL Deliveries CDRLs; Page 24; CDRL A023 – SDP TI-16/APB-17 is the first development activity required under the PCS program. It’s not clear why a TI-16/APB-

15 SDP would be required rather than a TI-16/APB-17 SDP describing the planned TI-16/APB-17 software development plans.

The CDRL A023 - Software Development Plan (SDP) document has been updated for TI-16/APB-17 vice TI-16/APB-15.

20 4/24/2014 CDRL Deliveries CDRLs; Page 27; CDRL A026 – TEPP TI-16/APB-17 is the first development activity required under the PCS program. It’s not clear why a TI-16/APB-

15 TEPP would be required rather than a TI-16/APB-17 TEPP describing the planned TI-16/APB-17 test and evaluation program plan.

The CDRL A026 - Test and Evaluation Program Plan (TEPP) document has been updated for TI-16/APB-17 vice TI-16/APB-15.

21 4/25/2014 T&E Deliverables Attachment 2 (SOW), page B-12, paragraph 3.1.

There does not appear to be a CDRL provided for developing a TRD.

Is it the government’s intent that a TRD will be developed for this contract?

The Test Requirements Document (TRD) is not a required document.

SOW, App. A-C, Sect. 3.1 have been updated to remove the TRD reference.

22 4/24/2014 TI-16/APB-17 PCS

Capabilities

Statement of Work; Page 12 Request additional information on the level of detail and external involvement envisioned during the “in-process design phase”.

Acknowledged. No change to the SOW, Section 1-3, Section 3.9

23 4/24/2014 TI-16/APB-17 PCS

Capabilities

Statement of Work; Page B-4; Section

1.5 – System Requirements

If TI-16/APB-17 is based on, and equivalent to TI-16/APB-15, what are the contractor’s responsibilities in regards to “inherited” system/performance problems?

Unless they will be corrected in TI 16/APB 15, recommend table of capabilities expanded to include:

1) Correction of Timed Flights per latest NUWC Tech Memo requirements

2) Removal of proprietary products and dead/unsupported languages; i.e. CommonGEO, RADEX, ADA

Acknowledged. The Capability Improvements for TI-16 / APB-17 (SOW;

App. A; Section 1.5), TI-18 / APB-17 (SOW; App. B; Section 1.5), and TI-

18/APB-19 (SOW; App. C; Section 1.5) have been removed. The Capability

Improvements requirements have been re-allocated to the SOW, Appendix D.

24 4/24/2014 WC Baseline

Architecture

Assessment documentation

Statement of Work; Page B-7; Section

1.5.3.6 – PCS Architecture Study and

Design

These usability characteristics are artifacts of the user interface design, not necessarily the system architecture.

Recommend changing “PCS architecture” to “PCS design” in this section

Acknowledged. No change to the SOW, Appendix E, Section 1.5.3.6

Comments to the Draft Solication for AN/BYG-1 Payload Control System (PCS), N00024-14-R-6203

25 4/24/2014 WC Baseline

Architecture

Assessment documentation

Statement of Work; Page D-2; Section

1.5 – System Requirements

It is unclear what “PCS Re-architecture Continuation” requires of the contractor. Clarification is needed to correctly estimate the scope of the work in this section. The current RFP implies that the re-architecture should be completed with TI 16/APB 17. Is that the navy’s intent or are they allowing for a phased solution. ? This should be clarified; we also recommend that proposals that deliver a fully re-architected PCS system sooner be given higher technical consideration (recognizing that this be evaluated in a best value context) . We recommend that the minimum attributes for a successfully re-architected system should be clear and should include removal of proprietary products and dead/unsupported languages. At the conclusion of the re-architecture , all of the following should have been replaced in their entirety:

1) ADA

2) RADEX

3) X-Windows/Motif

4) Common GEO

The complete elimination of these tools/technologies will enable the adoption of the MOSA principles cited elsewhere in the RFP.

The SOW, Section E has been generated for PCS Re-architecture requirements. The Re-architecture has the same POP as TI-16 / APB-17 which is planned to complete in the one TI / APB phase. SOW, Section 1-

3, Section 1.4 diagram has been updated to reflect the requirement efforts.

26 4/25/2014 GFI Data, related to

Safety

GFI Attachment 3 Request latest available TI 16/APB 15 (or prior) safety program products and documents be added to GFI list at contract award to include all safety deliverables provided to PMS 425 during the life of the existing contract, assumed to include:

• Open Safety Action Items

• SSPP

• PHA

• ILA report

• All files and materials used for fault tree analyses

• SHA

• SSHA

• SR/CA

• O&SHA

• SARS

• FOLDS

• HARS

• 425 SSMP

• Any documentation identifying tailored safety requirements (ie JSSSEH)

• SWG Minutes

• Safety PTRs

• WSESRB/SSSTRP data packages, presentations, action items, and letters

• WSESRB/SSSTRP History/Findings

Safety documentation will be provided as part of the GFI at Contract

Award.

27 4/27/2014 CPIF Line item pricing and evaluated cost

RFP page 185, Figure 5 , Schedule B and related SOW paragraphs

Figure 5 cites government total evaluated cost to include the summation of a number of line items that are currently identified as CPIF. As CPIF line items, these items will require clear relatively unambiguous requirements to ensure common proper pricing assumptions across bidding contractors. For CPIF line item developments that are dependent on the government defining new required capabilities ( CLIN 005, for TI

16/APB 17; CLIN 10 for PCS arch; CLINS 0105, 108 for TI 18/APB 17; CLIN 0205, 0208 for TI 18/APB 19 ) the Navy should more clearly articulate what new capabilities are required with detailed requirements to more accurately determine and estimate impact to the PCS architecture and software designs, and ultimately the estimated cost of implementation.

The Capability Improvements for TI-16 / APB-17 (SOW; App. A; Section

1.5), TI-18 / APB-17 (SOW; App. B; Section 1.5), and TI-18/APB-19 (SOW;

App. C; Section 1.5) have been removed. The Capability Improvements requirements have been re-allocated to the SOW, Appendix D.

28 4/27/2014 CPIF Line item pricing and evaluated cost

RFP page 185, Figure 5 , Schedule B and related SOW paragraphs

Figure 5 summation currently includes CPIF pricing for lab assets (step 12 for CLINs 0007, 0107, and 0109).Since these are currently identified as CPIF and priced as evaluated costs, assumptions and requirements should be clear so they can be properly priced. Lab asset costs are primarily dependent on the Navy tech insertion team

COTS processor selection and BYG-1 program “rack and stack” process that has yet to take place for TI 16, let alone TI 18 . With the amount of uncertainty associated with the level of virtualization (and what a TI 16 or TI 18

BYG-1 H/W footprint would look like), coupled with the lack of processor hardware definition, it does not seem reasonable to make these items part of the evaluated price at this time. Recommend these line items be priced after contract award, as either CPIF or CPFF.

No update to the SOW. The Offeror needs to propose the lab assets they need to accomplish the technical effort they propose.

29 4/27/2014 VPM integration SOW APP B, pg C-1, first paragraph and sec 1.5 Capability Item table

The Navy should clarify the expectation for the additional variant capability and define what is expected with the new VPM VIRGINA BLOCK V 44 tube launcher interface.. and whether it is just an extension/scaling of the existing VA Block III WCS-CWL launcher interface or something different than that.

The Capability Improvements for TI-16 / APB-17 (SOW; App. A; Section

1.5), TI-18 / APB-17 (SOW; App. B; Section 1.5), and TI-18/APB-19 (SOW;

App. C; Section 1.5) have been removed. The Capability Improvements requirements have been re-allocated to the SOW, Appendix D.

30 4/28/2014 CLIN applicability to

Technical Instructions

RFP Section B; Page 24, and Section H, In Note A (page 24) it seems to indicate CLINs 0005, 0007, 0010, and options 0006, 0105, 0106, etc…) are to be authorized via Technical Instruction. However, the CLINS are not included in the Technical Instruction Clause on

(page 78). Please clarify if the clauses in Note A are applicable to the Technical Instruction clause in Section H.

The RFP will be clarified.

31 4/28/2014 Limitations on

Subcontracting

RFP Section I, Page 87 and Section M, Page 175, M 1.0

In accordance with Section 1651 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 and the GAO’s decision in

Sealift, Inc., B-409001 (Jan. 6, 2014), recommend clarification of the Limitations on Subcontracting Clause to be in compliance with the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act that permits the small business prime contractor to count small business subcontractors toward the prime’s own performance requirement under this clause.

This contract is not being awarded under the special Small Business Act programs, such as 8(a) and the others listed in the NDAA language, therefore the Limitations on Subcontracting Clause is not required to be changed.

32 4/28/2014 Past Performance and

Cost Performance

Report

RFP - Addendum to Section L, Page

158, Attachment L-1, Instructions to

Offeror, 3rd paragraph

The above statement in the RFP requires submittal of the most recent Cost Performance Report (CPR) with the past performance questionnaires. Recommend adding “where EVMS reporting is required by the contract.”

The RFP - Addendum to Section L, Attachment L-1 has been updated to reflect the submission of a C/SSR or the Contractor's Monthly Progress, Status and Management report would be acceptable.

33 4/28/2014 Earned Value

Management System

RFP Section I, pages 94-95; Section L

Page 116; and Attachment 2 – SOW for the Submarine Payload Control System

(PCS), Page 7. Section 3.1.4

The RFP, on pages 94 and 116, states an acceptable EVMS is applicable to contracts over $50 million but the

SOW does not make this distinction with regards to a dollar threshold and states that a formally validated and accepted EVMS is required for the referenced CLINs. Please clarify if an acceptable EVMS is required no matter the dollar threshold. Additionally, the CLIN references for EVMS in the solicitation and the SOW do not match

(the SOW does not include CLINs 0010, 0006, 0106, and 0108). Please confirm the applicable CLINs.

EVMS will be required for all "to completion tasks" .

34 4/28/2014 Government Furnished

Information for Basis of

Estimate format

RFP Section L 2.0.5.4.3, Page 150 and

SOW Section 3.1.3, Page 7

The Basis of Estimates (BOE) format (Contract WBS) was not provided in the Government Furnished

Information (GFI), Attachment 3. Please provide the format document as soon as possible in the ETIC since this is something that is critically necessary for pre-proposal efforts prior to formal RFP release.

The WBS will be provided as part of the GFI at RFP release.

35 4/28/2014 Responsibilities of PCS in context of the UAV payloads

RFP Section L 2.0.5.1, Section 1.1.1, Page 130, Paragraph 2

Request clarification of the responsibilities for PCS with regard to UAV payloads. Will PCS be responsible for the launching and control of the vehicle? Will PCS need to support UAV sensors, weapons, and countermeasures?

Or will PCS responsibility be isolated to specific payload functions (i.e. weapons and countermeasures only)?

We believe current submarine command and control capabilities for UAVs have been executed primarily as a

Tactical Control System function.

The Capability Improvements for TI-16 / APB-17 (SOW; App. A; Section

1.5), TI-18 / APB-17 (SOW; App. B; Section 1.5), and TI-18/APB-19 (SOW;

App. C; Section 1.5) have been removed. The Capability Improvements requirements have been re-allocated to the SOW, Appendix D.

36 4/29/2014 SRVM Attachment 2 SOW 1.5.1 Requirements

Documentation

Recommend these documents be made available via the ETIC prior to formal RFP release. Acknowledged. The final TI14 APB13 SSS will be provided as part of the

GFI package at RFP release.

37 4/29/2014 CDRL A021 Software

Design Description

PCS_Exhibit_A_CDRLS DI-IPSC-81435A designates that the format should be contractor format unless otherwise specified. Will the

CDRL allow contractor format? DI-IPSC-81425A also designates that the CDRL should specify whether the delivered format has to compatible with particular support software, can be in an automated tool, etc – rather than a traditional document. There is no format specified by the CDRL. Please clarify if any specific format is required.

The format is specific in the DI-IPSC-81425A. No further specific requirements are added in the SOW.

38 4/29/2014 Scope of work: Strike

Component Integration

Attachment 2 SOW Scope The integration and test of the strike components and interface with PMA280 and PMA281 is currently under

NUWC tasking. We believe the only portion tested by the incumbent is the WCS interface to the strike components. Is the intent to add the strike component integration and testing task to the scope of this contract? Please clarify

Yes, the Strike component integration and testing is part of PCS scope as documented in SOW Section 1 Scope

39 4/30/2014 Scope Clarification for

Pricing

Draft RFP Section B, page 2 of 187, CLIN Item # 0001

CLIN 0001 executes level-of-effort engineering efforts through the execution of task-specific TIs. The labor mix and thus the blended rate for execution on any specific TI may vary. Can the Government provide a "Fixed-For-

Evaluation Labor-Mix Table" that provides hours per labor category - such that the Government can derive a representative blended rate for evaluation purposes.

Government does not intend to provide a "Fixed-For-Evaluation Labor-mix Table".

40 4/30/2014 CDRL Pricing Draft RFP Section B, page 9 of 187

(CLIN 0011) compared to page 26 of

187 (Note D)

If CLIN 0011 is Not Separately Priced (NSP), then why does it reference Note D which states that price blocks must be filled out for related CDRLs? Can the Government pre-fill Box 17 and 18 on all CDRLs with "NSP."

The RFP Note D has been updated.

41 4/30/2014 ISO 9001 Requirement Draft RFP Section B, page 52 of 187, 52.246-11 HIGHER-LEVEL CONTRACT

QUALITY, Table

Can the Government delete reference to ISO 9001 as there is no hardware manufacturing required in this contract.

The RFP Section B has been updated with IEEE 12207-2008 vice ISO 9001.

42 4/30/2014 Total Hours per CLIN Draft RFP Section H, page 73 of 187

5252.216-9122 LEVEL OF EFFORT (DEC

2000), paragraph (a); compared to page 23 of 187, Table B-1

The sum of the CLINs in table B-1 (page 23) is 188,182 hours - that exceeds the stated hours of 180,000 (page

73). Please correct this inconsistency

The RFP Section H 5252.216-9122 Level of Effort has been updated with

282,272 hours.

43 4/30/2014 Data Rights Draft RFP Section K, page 111 of 187, 252.227-7017

Can the Government include DFARS 252.227-7018. This is the clause associated with SBIR data rights for noncommercial technology and software.

DFARS clause 2552.227-7018 will not be added since PCS is not under the

SBIR program as a SBIR contract; therefore a restriction on the technical data rights under SBIR would not benefit the Government.

44 4/30/2014 Proposal Compliance

Matrices

Draft RFP Section L, page 128 of 187, L

2.0.1 RFP Response Requirements, last

paragraph

A compliance matrix provides the Government with a cross-reference to find technical and programmatic information. Does the Government desire a compliance matrix - and provide that it shall not be included in the page count.

Section L 2.0.3 allows cross referencing. The Government does not desire a compliance matrix.

45 4/30/2014 WCS System Baseline for Section L Responses

Draft RFP Section L, page 130 of 187, L

2.0.5.1 Volume I - TECHICAL PROPOSAL

, Section 1.1.1 Design - Advanced

Processor Build (APB) and Section 1.1.2

Design - Architecture

What is the system baseline for the PCS migration requested in section L? Is it the baseline defined by TI14/APB-

13? Can the Government post the TI14/APB-13 CDR package and other artifacts on the e-tic to define the system baseline.

The RFP Volume I - Technical Proposal, Technical Approach - Section 1.1.1 has been updated from Design - Advanced Processor Build (APB) to

Design - Capability Improvements. Amplifying information will be provided as GFI. The PCS System baseline is TI-16 / APB-17.

46 4/30/2014 Scope Clarification Draft RFP Section L, page 130 of 187, L

2.0.5.1 Volume I - TECHICAL PROPOSAL

, Section 1.1.1 Design - Advanced

Processor Build (APB)

The BOE for CLINs 0005, 0105, and 0205 reflect the increment PCS implementation requested. Can the

Government reword the Section L paragraph entitled “Design – Advanced Processor Build (APB)” to correspond with the work associated with CLINs 0005,0105 and 0205.Can the Government clarify 1.1.1 to explicitly link it to associated CLIN.

No update to the RFP Volume I - Technical Proposal.

47 4/30/2014 Scope Clarification Draft RFP Section L, page 131 of 187, L

2.0.5.1 Volume I - TECHICAL PROPOSAL

, Section 1.1.2 Design - Architecture

The BOE for CLIN 0010 reflects the required PCS rearchitecture study. Can the Government reword the Section

L paragraph entitled “Design – Architecture” to correspond with the work associated with CLIN 0010. Can the

Government clarify 1.1.2 to explicitly link it to associated CLIN.

No update to the RFP Volume I - Technical Proposal.

48 4/30/2014 UAV Draft RFP Section L, page 131 of 187, L

2.0.5.1 Volume I - TECHICAL PROPOSAL

, Section 1.1.1, paragraph a. 2)

The notional introduction of a UAV provides the Government with evidence that the proposed PCS architecture is modular and adaptable. Can the Government provide specificity/detail regarding the “future UAV payload” or

GFI on the e-tic regarding interface requirements. Can the Government clarify which submarine variants should be addressed with regard to the UAV.

The RFP Volume I - Technical Proposal, Technical Approach - Section 1.1.1 has been updated from Design - Advanced Processor Build (APB) to

Design - Capability Improvements. Amplifying information will be provided as GFI.

49 4/30/2014 Volume I Appendices Draft RFP Section L, page 129 of 187, L

2.0.5.1., 2nd paragraph Draft RFP

Section L, page 131 of 187, L 2.0.5.1., Section 1.1.3 Draft RFP Section

L, page 132 of 187, L 2.0.5.1., Section

1.1.5

The SRVM and SDP are not counted within the Technical Volume Page count limitations. Can the Government require that these documents be provided in Volume I Appendices – rather than in the middle of the Technical

Volume.

The RFP Volume IV for Supplementary Items has been added. The

Software Development Plan (SDP) and Specification Requirement

Verification Matrix (SRVM) are part of the supplementary items;

therefore is not part of the page count. Added words to be specific on the supplementary volume and page counts are noted in the Volume I

Technical Proposal Section 1.1.3 Requirements Traceability and

Specification Requirement Verification Matrix (SRVM) and Section 1.1.5

Software Development Plan (SDP).

50 4/30/2014 SRVM Performance

Specifications

Draft RFP Section L, page 132 of 187, L

2.0.5.1. Technical Proposal, 1.1.3

Requirements Traceability and System

Requirements Verification Matrix

(SRVM)

Can the Government provide the SWFTS GRL on the e-tic - and require that the SRVM reflect its interface requirements.

The SWFTS GRL will be part of the GFI package at RFP release. There is no change to the SOW and CDRL A018 Specification Requirement Verification

Matrix (SRVM) deliverable. The PCS Performance Specification identifies interface requirements. The SRVM is the Contractor's deliverable response to the PCS Performance Specification.

51 4/30/2014 SRVM Clarification Draft RFP Section L, page 132 of 187, L

2.0.5.1. Technical Proposal, 1.1.3

Requirements Traceability and System

Requirements Verification Matrix

(SRVM)

Is there a requirement for PCS PM/FL to be consistent/compatible with TC? If Yes, does this apply to all submarine variants?

Acknowledged. No change to the SOW Appendixes

52 4/30/2014 SRVM TCS Human

Control Interface

Draft RFP Section L, page 132 of 187, L

2.0.5.1. Technical Proposal, 1.1.3

Requirements Traceability and System

Requirement Verification Matrix

(SRVM)

Can the Government provide TC human control interface requirements. Acknowledged. No change to the SOW Appendixes or GFI listing.

53 4/30/2014 SDP Draft RFP Section L, page 132 of 187, L

2.0.5.1. Technical Proposal, 1.1.5

Software Development Plan (SDP)

Can the Government clarify that the Data Rights Table does not count against the page count. The RFP Volume IV for Supplementary Items has been added. The data rights restrictions are part of the supplementary items; therefore is not part of the page count. Added words to be specific on the supplementary volume and page counts are noted in the Volume I Technical Proposal

Section 1.1.6 Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software.

54 4/30/2014 BOE Clarification Draft RFP Section L, page 134 of 187, L

2.0.5.1 Volume I - TECHICAL PROPOSAL

, Section 1.2.1

Does the Government intend that the technical approach described in 1.1.1 be reflected in the BOE provided for

CLIN 0005, 105, 205, 0108 and 0208? Does the Government intend that the technical approach described in

1.1.2 be reflected in the BOE provided for CLIN 0010? Can the Government clarify 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 to explicitly link them to associated CLINs.

Acknowledged. No change to the RFP.

55 4/30/2014 IMS or Master Phasing

Schedule

Draft RFP Section L, page 135 of 187,

2.1.3 IMS

Does the Government want a fully developed IMS in Microsoft Project format or is a single page Master Phasing

Schedule adequate to meet this paragraph? If it is a full IMS, does the Government intend that it be page limited or provided as an addendum outside of the Management Volume page limit.

The RFP Volume II - Management Proposal, Program Management

Approach - Section 2.1.3 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) has been update to state limit of two pages and in Microsoft Project format.

56 4/30/2014 IMS Clarification Draft RFP Section L, page 135 of 187,

2.1.3 IMS

Does the Government require a separate IMS for CLIN0010 or is it embedded in the CLIN 0005 IMS? The RFP Volume II - Management Proposal, Program Management

Approach - Section 2.1.3 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) has been updated for the TI-16 / APB-17 including the Architecture based IMS.

57 4/30/2014 Manufacturing

Requirements

Draft RFP Section L, page 137 of 187,

2.1.5 Facilities

Can the Government remove this requirement - as no such scope exists in this RFP. Acknowledged. No change to the RFP.

58 4/30/2014 Page Count Draft RFP Section L, page 137 of 187,

2.1.5 Facilities

Can the Government stipulate that pages associated with leases are excluded from the page count. The RFP Volume II Management Proposal Section 2.1.5 Facilities has been updated for the lease(s) documents are not included in the page count limitation.

59 4/30/2014 Past Performance

Consideration Period

Draft RFP Section L, page 137 of 187, Section 3.0 vs. page 138 of 187, Section

3.1

Can the Government clarify this section such that it is clear that the intent is to solicit past performance data for similar projects conducted within the past 3 years – and not 5 years. Can the Government clarify that at least one of the past performance questionnaires MUST be from the Prime Contractor.

The RFP Volume III Past Performance Section 3.0 Past Performance has been updated for data within 3 to 5 years vice only within 5 years.

60 4/30/2014 Missing Cost and Fee

Tables

Draft RFP Section L, page 141 of 187,L

2.0.5.4 Volume IV – COST PROPOSAL, Section 1.4--Cost and Fee Summaries

Table L-1 (page 158) is a Past Performance Questionnaire. Table L-3 (page 163) is Personnel Job Description.

Table L-1 does not appear to be relevant within the cost and fee summary section. Can the Government confirm that Table L-1 is the appropriate table to complete - and that L-2 was intentionally omitted?

The RFP Addendum to Section L, Attachment L Tables have been renumbered with L-1 and L-2 vice L-1 and L-3.

61 4/30/2014 Cost Summary

Clarification

Draft RFP Section L, page 141 of 187,L

2.0.5.4 Volume IV – COST PROPOSAL, Section 1.4--Cost and Fee Summaries

Can the Government clarify the level of detail for item (c) "the cost summary for each WBS". How does this differ from item (a) the cost of each CLIN and (b) the cost for level 3 of the WBS?

The RFP Volume V - COST PROPOSAL, Section 1.4 Cost and Fee Summaries have been updated to reflect "the annual cost of each CLIN".

62 4/30/2014 Rate Cap Clarification Draft RFP Section L, page 150 of 187, L.2.0.5.4.3 CHAPTER 3.0 - SUPPORTING

COST DATA

Does the Government require the inclusion of a rate cap – or is it optional? Can the Government provide sample rate-cap clause language?

Acknowledged. No updated to the RFP.

63 4/30/2014 Draft RFP Section L, page 152/153 of

187, L 2.0.5.4.3.2 Section 3.2--Direct

Costs; compared to page 182 of 187, M

2.4.1.2 Evaluation for Material, Travel

and Subsistence for Engineering

Services

Cost of material travel and subsistence CLINs is stipulated at $2.3 Million. Can the Government remove the requirement to provide additional details and rationale associated with these costs.

Acknowledged. No updated to the RFP.

64 4/30/2014 Direct Cost Clarification Draft RFP Section L, page 153 of 187, L

2.0.5.4.3.2 Section 3.2--Direct Costs

Few small businesses have sufficient past performance to validate SLOC-based cost estimating - and rely extensively on WBS-based costing using historical metrics. Can the Government remove the requirement for a

SLOC-based cost-estimating technique required in Section L 2.0.5.4.3.2 Section 3.2--Direct Costs.

The RFP Volume V - COST PROPOSAL, Section L 2.0.5.4.3.2 Section 3.2 -

Direct Costs, d. Software Costs have been modified to remove details on the cost estimating model.

65 4/30/2014 CPR Draft RFP Section L, page 158 of 187, Attachment L-1 - Past Performance

Questionnaire

Few small businesses have executed contracts that require a CPR; making submission of this data as part of the past performance data problematic. Can the Government revise the statement to require a CPR only for past performance contracts which required a CPR CDRL – or delete this requirement.

The RFP Addendum to Section L, Attachment L-1 has been updated to reflect submission of a C/SSR or the Contractor's Monthly Progress, Status and Management report would be acceptable.

66 4/30/2014 Missing Attachment Draft RFP Section L, page 163 of 187, L-

3, (no sub-section ID)

Can the Government provide Attachment #1 with blank table. The RFP Addendum to Section L, Attachment L-3 has been updated to refer to Figures 1 - 4 to be filled in by the Offeror.

67 4/30/2014 Education/Experience

Requirements

Draft RFP Section L, page 167/168 of

187, Attachment L-3 – Personnel Job

Description

Can the Government revise the table to require combat system experience rather than sonar experience. Acknowledged. Clarification details have been added to the RFP Section L -

Attachment 2 Personnel Job Description table.

68 4/30/2014 Education/Experience

Requirements

Draft RFP Section L, page 174 of 187, Attachment L-3 – Personnel Job

Description, Note after table

Can the Government clarify the note on the experience/educational requirements and the notion of substituting 2 years of experience for 1 year of equivalent education. Does this mean that an individual with a BS with 4 years of experience is equivalent to an individual with a MS degree (2 years) and 0 years of experience?

Acknowledged. Clarification details have been added to the RFP Section L -

Attachment 2 Personnel Job Description table.

69 4/30/2014 No M 1.3.3 Draft RFP Section M, page 177 of 187, M 2.3 Factor 3 - Past Performance

Can the Government clarify the contents of section M 1.3.3, which is missing in the draft RFP. The RFP Section M has been renumbered.

70 4/30/2014 Rating System

Clarification

Draft RFP Section M, page 177 of 187, M 1.3 Rating System

Section M 1.3 is between sections M 2.3 and M 2.4. Should it be moved after section M 1.2 or renumbered? The RFP Section M 1.3 and 2.3 have been renumbered.

71 4/30/2014 Rating System

Clarification

Draft RFP Section M, page 178 of 187, M 1.3 Rating System

The risk evaluation refers to technical subfactors. Can the Government explicitly identify the subfactors - and provide the scoring method for the subfactors.

Acknowledged. There are no subfactors in this solicitation.

72 4/30/2014 Cost Template Draft RFP Section M, page 179 of 187, M 2.4 Factor 4 – Price

Can the Government provide a spreadsheet cost template? Acknowledged. The Government does not plan to provide a cost template.

73 4/30/2014 Cost Realism - Labor

Mix

Draft RFP Section M, page 179 of 187, Section M 2.4.1.1

Can the Government confirm their intention not to adjust the labor mix distribution? The RFP Section M 2.4.1.1 indicates the Government will make any cost realism adjustments to direct labor and indirect costs.

74 4/30/2014 Total Evaluated Cost Draft RFP Section M, page 182 of 187, Section M 2.4.1.3, paragraph (b)

Please clarify the sentence “the cost proposed for PCS will not necessarily be used in calculating of the Total

Evaluated Cost under Section 3.2 above." Is this the CLIN 0005 or CLIN 0010 costs?

Acknowledged. RFP Section M will be reviewed for consistency.

75 4/30/2014 Data Rights Draft RFP Section M, page 184 of 187, Section M 2.4.2 Adjustment for

Computer Software and Technical Data

Rights (FFP) – CLIN 0014

Can the Government confirm its intention to exclude SBIR software/data from CLIN 0014. The Government does not intend to exclude SBIR software/data from

CLIN0014.

76 4/30/2014 PoP Period Attachment 2 SOW, page 3 (5 of 70), Section 1.4, Program Phasing

Can the Government confirm that this is a 5 year PoP effort - and that the six-year period referred to is a typo? The SOW Section 1-3, Section 1.4 has been update to five years vice six years.

77 4/30/2014 CLIN0010 Schedule Attachment 2 SOW, page 4 (6 of 70), Section 1.4, Program Phasing

Can the Government add efforts conducted under CLIN 0010 to the program phasing diagram. Did the

Government intend to modify/replace the program phasing diagram provided in the Industry Day?

The SOW Section 1-3, Section 1.4 diagram has been updated to remove TI-

16 / APB-15 reference.

78 4/30/2014 PM Attachment 2 SOW, page 6 (8 of 70), Section 3.1 Program and Content

Management vs. Draft RFP Section L, page 163 of 187, L-3

SOW states the need to “designate a single PM.” Does the Government desire both a PM and a Senior PM as described in the RFP L-3?

Acknowledged. No update to the SOW.

79 4/30/2014 Attachment Number Attachment 2 SOW, page 7 (9 of 70), Section 3.1.3, Contract Work

Breakdown Structure (CWBS)

Can the Government provide the PMS425 WBS such that our bid CWBS is consistent with it. The WBS will be provided as part of the GFI package at RFP release.

80 4/30/2014 Scope Clarification Attachment 2 SOW, Appendix A

CLIN0005, page B-4 (21 of 70), 1.5

System Requirements

Can the Government clarify the extent to which CLIN005 price should include effort to develop and implement an Alternative Targeting Algorithm Approach - or to integrate a GFI product.

The Capability Improvements for TI-16 / APB-17 (SOW; App. A; Section

1.5), TI-18 / APB-17 (SOW; App. B; Section 1.5), and TI-18/APB-19 (SOW;

App. C; Section 1.5) have been removed. The Capability Improvements requirements have been re-allocated to the SOW, Appendix D.

The RFP Volume I - Technical Proposal, Technical Approach - Section 1.1.1 has been updated from Design - Advanced Processor Build (APB) to

Design - Capability Improvements. Amplifying information will be provided as GFI.

81 4/30/2014 Scope Clarification Attachment 2 SOW, Appendix A

CLIN0005, page B-6 (23 of 70),1.5.3.6

PCS Architecture Study and Design

Why is the CLIN0010 SOW imbedded within the CLIN0005 SOW. Does the CLIN 0005 price include the CLIN0010 effort?

No, CLIN 0005 price does not include CLIN 0010 effort. The RFP and SOW have been updated to more clearly defined between TI-16 /APB-17 (CLIN

0005) and Architecture (CLIN0010) efforts. The PCS Architecture requirements have been reallocated from SOW, Appendix A to Appendix

E.

82 4/30/2014 Scope and Timeline

Clarification

Attachment 2 SOW, Appendix A

CLIN0005, page B-6 (23 of 70), 1.5.3.6

PCS Architecture Study and Design

SOW Appendix A (the CLIN 005 SOW) includes the CLIN 0010 SOW. This structure is inconsistent with BOE development. Can the Government create a separate SOW for CLIN0010. Can the Government provide additional clarity with regard to the detail anticipated in this study (e.g. documentation, reviews, IPT participation).

The RFP and SOW have been updated to more clearly defined between TI-

16 /APB-17 (CLIN 0005) and Architecture (CLIN0010) efforts. The PCS

Architecture requirements have been reallocated from SOW, Appendix A to Appendix E.

83 4/30/2014 Scope Clarification Attachment 2 SOW, Appendix A, Page

B-8 (pg 25 of 70), Section 1.5.3.6

The limited set of PCS re-architecture requirements provided in the SOW defines much of the design, development, integration and test - and associated cost - required in CLIN 0010, 0005, 0105, and 0205. Can the

Government expand and clarify the PCS re-architecture Design Requirements – and provide the list as a sequence of ‘shall statements.” (e.g. the re-architected PCS shall not use CM-2, shall not use ADA, and shall not use RADEX…") Can the Government clarify what is/is-not “a modern software language.” Does the Government require that all ‘dead code’ be removed? Can the Government quantify the extent of this removal.

The PCS Architecture requirements have been reallocated from SOW, Appendix A to Appendix E.

84 4/30/2014 Operator and

Maintenance Training

Attachment 2 SOW, page B-7 (24 of

70), Section 1.5.3.6, PCS Architecture

Study and Design

Can the Government confirm its intention that bidders include the cost to develop operator and maintenance training materials within the CLIN0005/0105/0205 scope?

The PCS Contractor will be providing IETM source data. This will help guide the training. The PCS Contractor will not be required to conduct and support training.

85 4/30/2014 CDRL Clarification Attachment 2 SOW, Appendix A

CLIN0005, page B-7 (24 of 70),1.5.3.6

PCS Architecture Study and Design

CDRL A021 is a Software Design Document (SDD). Does the Government require a System/Subsystem Design

Document (SSDD) instead?

The PCS Architecture requirements have been reallocated from SOW, Appendix A to Appendix E. The CDRL A019 SSDD will be updated accordingly to support the architecture design.

86 4/30/2014 Scope Clarification Attachment 2 SOW, Appendix A

CLIN0005, page B-8 (25 of 70),1.5.3.6

PCS Architecture Study and Design

Can the Government provide a timeline for required deliverables and process steps within the CLIN0010

Architecture Study to include SE reviews (SRR, PDR, CDR…) and documents. Can the Government clarify the exit criteria for CLIN0010.

The PCS Architecture requirements have been reallocated from SOW, Appendix A to Appendix E.

87 4/30/2014 Facilities Clarification Attachment 2 SOW, Appendix A Page B-

13 (30 of 70), Section 6.1

Hardware/Software Integration and

Test (HSIT) Facilities. CLIN 0007, 0107.

Is it correct to assume that CLIN 0007 and 0107 are for development test site hardware, and do not include launcher hardware. Can the Government clarify the required Integration Approach – with the various weapons launchers and TC baselines.

Acknowledged. No update to the SOW.

88 4/30/2014 Scope Clarification Attachment 2 SOW, Appendix B

CLIN0105, page C-2 (36 of 70), 1.5

System Requirements

Can the Government provide on the e-tic information associated with ADCAP Torpedo Spiral 5 and Tomahawk

Post-Launch SIM – such that the bidder can prepare a justified completion-task CPIF cost proposal for this scope. Can the Government also provide on the e-tic the “PMS450 VIRGINIA Class Weapons Launch Technology

Baseline Improvement Plan.”

The Capability Improvements for TI-16 / APB-17 (SOW; App. A; Section

1.5), TI-18 / APB-17 (SOW; App. B; Section 1.5), and TI-18/APB-19 (SOW;

App. C; Section 1.5) have been removed. The Capability Improvements requirements have been re-allocated to the SOW, Appendix D.

No, the government will not be providing the PMS450 VIRGINIA Class

Weapons Launch Technology Baseline Improvement Plan as part of the

GFI eTIC for the RFP.

89 4/30/2014 Scope Clarification Attachment 2 SOW, Appendix C

CLIN0205, page C-2 (50 of 70), 1.5

System Requirements

Can the Government provide on the e-tic information associated with ADCAP Torpedo Spiral 5 Update – such that the bidder can prepare a justified completion-task CPIF cost proposal for this scope.

The Capability Improvements for TI-16 / APB-17 (SOW; App. A; Section

1.5), TI-18 / APB-17 (SOW; App. B; Section 1.5), and TI-18/APB-19 (SOW;

App. C; Section 1.5) have been removed. The Capability Improvements requirements have been re-allocated to the SOW, Appendix D.

The RFP Volume I - Technical Proposal, Technical Approach - Section 1.1.1 has been updated from Design - Advanced Processor Build (APB) to

Design - Capability Improvements. Amplifying information will be provided as GFI.

90 4/30/2014 APB version address in

CLIN 0205

Attachment 2 SOW, Appendix C

CLIN0205, page D-1 (49 of 70), Intro

Please address this typo: should be TI-18/APB-19 The SOW App C; Intro have been updated to reflect the TI-18 / APB-19 vice TI-18 / APB-17 RAN product requirement for CLIN 0208

91 4/30/2014 CDRL Clarification Exhibit A CDRLs, A010 Technical Report -

Study/Services. Pg 11 of 30

Please provide the review cycle iteration constraint. Will the Government conduct only one iteration of comment and arbitration before approval?

The CDRL review cycles are noted in the Block 10, 12, 13 of the CDRL A010 form.

92 4/30/2014 Scope Clarification Exhibit A CDRLs, A010 Technical Report -

Study/Services. Pg 11 of 30; compared to Draft RFP Section F, page 57 of 187, Delivery Information

The RFP indicates that a PCS Architecture Study Execution Plan is due 60 ADC, and that the Architecture Study is to be completed 60 days subsequent to approval of the execution plan. The bidder, however is required to provide a price for CLIN0010 with a POP of 730 days ADC. Can the Government confirm the intended scope of

CLIN0010 beyond the completion of the PCS architecture study. Does the Government intend to conduct

CLIN0010 using technical instructions – with the first TI being for the conduct of the PCS Architecture Study, and subsequent systems engineering efforts funded under subsequent TIs? If CLIN0010 is executed as a set of TIs – should it be a CPFF CLIN?

The PCS Architecture requirements have been reallocated from SOW, Appendix A to Appendix E.

93 4/30/2014 Incorrect TI/APB cited in CDRLs

Exhibit A CDRLs, A017 SSS, Exhibit A

CDRLs, A018 SRVM, Exhibit A CDRLs, A019 SSDD, Exhibit A CDRLs, A020 SRS, Exhibit A CDRLs, A021 SDD, Exhibit A

CDRLs, A023 SDP, Exhibit A CDRLs, A026 TEPP

Should be TI-16/APB-17. The Exhibit A CDRLS have been updated to TI-16/APB-17.

94 4/30/2014 DOORS Requirement Exhibit A CDRLs, A016 Computer

Software Product End Items. Pg 17 of

30, Can the Government modify this CDRL to permit the use of a more affordable solution than DOORS? The Exhibit A CDRL A016 has been updated to state Contractor Integrated

Digital Environment databases.

95 5/1/2014 SOW Appendix D to

Attachment 2, Engineering Support

Services

Pg E-2, First two paragraphs It is not clear if these engineering services apply to just the TI-16/APB-17 and TI-18/APB-17 configurations developed under this resultant contract or to previous baselines developed and delivered by the incumbent. If these services do apply to baselines delivered under previous WC contracts, the navy should provide their expectation for the required facilities to support these older baselines, which baselines those are, and what GFI will be provided.

The SOW, Section 1-3, Section 1.4 diagram has been updated to remove

TI-16 / APB-15 reference.

96 4/30/2014 PCS Statement of Work Attachment 2, Paragraph 3.1.3

Contract Work Breakdown Structure

(CWBS)

This is an incomplete sentence. The SOW, Section 1-3, Section 3.1.3 has been update to include "level four

(4)".

97 4/30/2014 PCS Statement of Work, Appendices A thru D to

Attachment 2 (page numbering)

Appendix A thru Appendix D Appendix A to Attachment 2 has “B” page numbering; Appendix B to Attachment 2 has “C” page numbering;

Appendix C to Attachment 2 has “D” page numbering, and Appendix D…