Attachment_5_Bidders_Questions_Form_answers__8.16.pdf

Attachment 5: RFP QUESTION SUBMITTAL

Final Solicitation N00024-18-R-6407

QUESTION

NO.

(KTR)

SOLIC.

SECTION AND

PAGE (KTR)

GENERAL

SUBJECT

(KTR)

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

OR QUESTION (KTR) ANSWER

1 Pages 28 and 31 of the RFP and Page

D-1 of Appendix D of Attachment 1 of the SOW.

Section B, Supplies or

Services and

Prices; SOW

Appendix D of

Attachment 1.

CLINS 0103, 0203, 0303, and 0403, 0601, and 0701 are all associated with the same specific tasking defined in Appendix D to Attachment I of the SOW.

However, CLINs 0601 and 0701 have many more engineering hours associated with them than the other CLINS listed in Appendix D. Did the

Government intend for this or is this an error?

This was intentional to account for extra efforts in the last two years of the contract. No new baselines are planned after TI24/APB23 under this contract.

2 Section B; Page 4

& page 42.

The contract type for CLIN 0006 is referenced as

CPFF in Section B page 4, but NSP on page 42 & page 183. It appears NSP may be the correct contract type for this CDRL CLIN. Will the Government please update contract type on Page 4?

The CLIN is required to have a contract type, however it is a Not Separately Priced CLIN.

3 Section F; Page 67. Period of Performance for CLIN 0101 is listed as

"n/a". Can the Government please state the Period of

Performance for CLIN 0101?

Yes, the update has been made in amendment 0001.

4 Section L; Page

167/168.

The RFP limits the number of foldout pages for the proposal. Since Volume II-Cost/Price Proposal does not have a page count limitation, can offerors assume there are no limitations on the number of foldout pages in this volume?

There is no limitation on the number of foldout pages offers can provide for Volume II.

Section L.

Section L. As subcontractor pricing information may be considered proprietary data, will the Government allow Subcontractor information to be submitted as an individually wrapped submittal and indicated as an attachment to the prime’s submittal?

Yes, offerors can send subcontractor information, cost and pricing information to directly to the PCO or as an attachment to the offerors submittal.

Page 91, Contract

Clauses.

Section I. Request the following clause be removed from the

RFP since this is a Competitive Solicitation:

FAR 52.215-12 Subcontractor Certified Cost or

Pricing Data be removed from the RFP since this is a

Competitive Solicitation.

No, contract clause FAR 52.215-12 Subcontractor

Certified Cost or Pricing Data will not be removed from the solicitation. The clause will remain for the purpose of potentially having only one offeror.

Page 156/157, Clauses

Incorporated by

Full Text

Section L. Request the following clause be removed from the

RFP since this is a Competitive Solicitation:

Request FAR 52.215-20 Requirements for Cost or

Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or

Pricing Data.

No, contract clause FAR 52.215-20 Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing

Data will not be removed from the solicitation. The clause will remain in accordance with DFARS 215.408(3)(ii).

Page 156, Clauses

Incorporated by

Reference.

Section L. Request the following clause be removed from the

RFP since this is a Competitive Solicitation:

Request DFAR 252.215-7009 Proposal Adequacy

Yes, the clause 252.215-7009, has been deleted in amendment 0001.

(KTR)

SOLIC.

SECTION AND

PAGE (KTR)

GENERAL

SUBJECT

(KTR)

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

OR QUESTION (KTR) ANSWER

Checklist.

Page 149, Clauses

Incorporated by

Reference.

Section K. Will the Government please update the following clause with (DEVIATION 2018-O0015) so that the requirements for CAS Notices and Certifications is consistent with the TINA Threshold of $2,000,000:

FAR 52.230-1 Cost Accounting Standards Notices and Certification.

Yes, the contract clause FAR 52.230-1 has been updated to (DEVIATION 2018-O0015) in amendment 0001.

Pages 199-200, 2.5

FACTOR 5 -

COST/PRICE.

Section M. Page 199 states that the "orders CLINs will not be evaluated at this time." However, page 200 identifies the target cost, Government cost realism adjustments (if applicable) and fixed fee dollar amount of orders CLINs 0005 and 0007 will be included in the GTEC/P analysis. Will the

Government please confirm whether orders CLINs will or will not be evaluated in the GTEC/P analysis?

An update on the GTEC/P evaluation on the order CLINs

0005 and 0007 has been made in amendment 0001.

Page 172, 4.1

Factor (1) - 1.6

SEMP.

Section L. Factor 1.6 calls out Software Engineering

Management Plan (SEMP). Will the Government confirm that this should be the Systems Engineering

Management Plan (SEMP)?

The SEMP is the Systems Engineering Management Plan.

The RFP has been updated to fix this error in amendment

0001.

Page 183; Section

4.2.2.3.

Section L. Request the Government remove the words

"mandated in Section B" as the hours for Completion

CLINs are not defined in Section B.

Yes, the words “mandated in Section B” has been removed in amendment 0001.

Page 185; Section

4.2.4.

Section L. RFP Section L 4.2.4 states “Offerors shall provide a recent screen-capture (or equivalent) from the employer's payroll system for each named individual

(in Attachment 7 - Staffing Matrix), as well as for companywide highest, lowest, and average actual, incurred unburdened hourly rate data for each proposed labor category. The screen-captures (or equivalent) shall be fully explained, allowing the

Government to identify relevant compensation and clearly map to individual rates shown in Attachment

8 - Supporting Cost Data Workbooks, Parts A and B.

...". Instances may exist where an Offeror develops rates based upon a labor pooling methodology within defined job categories, rather than by utilizing employee-specific payroll data in its cost proposal.

To address these instances, will the Government

No, the Government will not amend section L for this request. Offerors should propose in accordance with

Section L.

(KTR)

SOLIC.

SECTION AND

PAGE (KTR)

GENERAL

SUBJECT

(KTR)

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

OR QUESTION (KTR) ANSWER

amend the solicitation such that this requirement be satisfied by solely providing supporting documentation that is consistent with an Offeror’s disclosed rate development process (in lieu of providing employee-specific payroll data)?

Page 186; Section

4.2.4 (h).

Section L. RFP Section 4.2.4; paragraph (h) states "Supporting data shall be included for subcontractors with cost or pricing data exceeding the $750,000 cost or pricing data threshold defined in FAR 15.403-4." Request the Government update the cost or pricing data value to $2,000,000 consistent with (DEVIATION 2018-

O0015).

Yes, the threshold has been updated in amendment 0001 of the RFP.

Page 167: Section

2.0.

Section L Will the Government eliminate the Page Limitation of Volume IV: Supplemental Information in order for offerors to provide Government evaluators sufficient BOE detail and a consistent BOE format between Volumes II and IV?

No, however the Government will update the page limitation to 100 pages for Volume IV.

Page 183. Section L. Will the Government allow offerors to bid their own

CPFF fee structure to allow competition to dictate a fair and reasonable price for the work contemplated in the Solicitation? In the event the Government will not allow competition to dictate the fair and reasonable CPFF fee, it is requested that the

Government increase the mandatory maximum CPFF fixed fees. Potential offerors are unable to determine precisely how the Government derived the CPFF fixed fees. However, it appears that the technical risks and management/cost control risks may not be fully recognized. Among other things, the scope is extremely important to the Government and the effort will involve a high degree of integration and coordination. Facilities capital employed and cost efficiency also add to the fee. Recognition of these factors warrants a CPFF fixed fee in excess of 6.0%.

No, the offerors are not allowed to bid their own CPFF fee structure. The Government will not increase the maximum

CPFF fixed fee of 6.0%. The Government has assessed the offerors technical risks, management/cost control risks and assessed the complexity of the requirement.

(a) Attachment 8 –

Part A Supporting

Cost Data

Based on the pre-populated fields in the Attachment

8-Part A worksheets (Hours by Government Fiscal

Year and CLIN worksheets), it appears that the

The anticipated contract award date is December 2019.

(KTR)

SOLIC.

SECTION AND

PAGE (KTR)

GENERAL

SUBJECT

(KTR)

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

OR QUESTION (KTR) ANSWER

Workbook (LOE-

ODC) Hrs by GFY worksheets

(b) Section F page

67 -70 Delivery

Information assumed start dates for the Engineering Services

CLINS (0001, 0003, 0103, 0105, 0203, 0205,

0207…) are aligned with the beginning of each

Government Fiscal Year.

For example, CLIN 0001 shows GFY 2020 on the

USN-RAN SHARE HR BY GFY-CWBS worksheet.

In addition, the CLIN specific worksheet for CLIN

0001 shows calendar year 2019 and 2020. Each

Engineering Services CLIN has a duration of 12 months, therefore the start date appears to be 1

October 2019.

Would the Government please confirm that for pricing purposes, the offeror is to assume a 1

October 2019 start for the base year Engineering

Services CLINs and each subsequent option year would begin 1 October?

Attachment 8 –

Part B Supporting

Cost Data

Workbook

(Completion)

CLIN worksheets

(b) Section F page

67 -70 Delivery

Information

Attachment 8 –

Part A

Supporting Cost

Data Workbook

(LOE-ODC),

Attachment 8 –

Part B

Based on the pre-populated fields in Attachment 8

Part B CLIN specific worksheets, it appears that the assumed start date for the first completion CLIN

(CLIN 0101) is 1 January 2020. Would the

Government please confirm that this assumption for the start date is correct?

In accordance with the RFP; the CLIN will begin once/ if option is exercised. The anticipated contract award date is

December 2019. The actual starting date, however, will be upon contract award which may be an earlier date.

Attachment 8 –

Part B Supporting

Cost Data

Workbook

(Completion)

CLIN worksheets

It appears that the CLIN specific worksheet for

CLIN 0008 is missing from Attachment 8 Part B.

Should the offerors add a worksheet for CLIN 0008?

What is the assumed start date for CLIN 0008 and what Calendar Years are to be entered into the CLIN specific worksheet for CLIN 0008?

The Government has revised Attachment 8 Part B to include CLIN 0008.

Page 173 Section

4.1.1.2, Sample

Task 2 –

Design/I&T for

APB

RFP, Section

4.1.1.2

Should the Offeror assume that Sample Task 2 begins with IWS5 TI16APB19 step approach or the previous traditional IWS5 step approach (TI18

APB19)?

The Government has purposefully not mandated either approach. The offeror’s approach must be sufficiently documented and explained in accordance with Sections L and M.

Page 36, Part A

Supporting Cost

RFP,

Attachment 8

Please confirm the starting period of performance for all Base Year CLINs to be December 1, 2019 as

The anticipated contract award date is December 2019.

The actual starting date, however, will be upon contract

(KTR)

SOLIC.

SECTION AND

PAGE (KTR)

GENERAL

SUBJECT

(KTR)

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

OR QUESTION (KTR) ANSWER

Data Workbooks

Section B, Note J

Incremental

Funding for

Completion CLINs stated in the FedBiz announcement. award which may be an earlier date.

4.4.2, BOEs on pages 185 to

186.

RFP, Section L Recommend the Government eliminate the BOEs from the allotted page count in Volume IV to fully address the BOE estimating methodology requirements.

No, however the Government will update the page limitation to 100 pages for Volume IV.

Last tab Excel file:

Attachment 8, Part B

(Completion

CLINs) ODC tab

There is an ODC tab in the Completion CLIN

Workbook; however, there is no mention of ODC estimations for Completion CLINs in the

RFP or corresponding ODC CLINs in Section B.

Is it the Government’s intent that Completion ODCs will be part of the Completion Labor CLINs or are separate CLINs required with Offeror proposed

ODCs?

Completion CLINs should include both the TI/APB hour estimate and ODC estimates required to support the tasking associated with the TI/APB hours. The CLIN tabs and the ODC tab rolls up into a CLIN total on the

“overview” tab. It is the Government’s Intent that

Completion ODC costs will be proposed as part of the

Completion CLINs (inclusive of both hours and ODCs, per Attachment 8 Part B, Supporting Cost Data Workbook for Completion). See Workbook Instructions.

Page 184-186

Supporting Cost

Data for Cost

Reimbursable and

Cost only CLINs

GFI 33, PMS 425

WBS

RFP Section L, 4.2.4

The Government has not provided the WBS reporting level for basis of estimate rationale. Should the Offeror assume the reporting level would correspond with the Attachment 8, Part

A, Supporting Cost Data Workbook for LOE CLINs

WBS descriptions?

The offerors should develop the WBS tabs in Attachment

8a and 8b in accordance with DID DI-MGMT-81334D applicable to the corresponding WBS CDRLA002.

Page 67 RFP, Section F The delivery date, quantity, ship to address, and

DODAAC/CAGE are listed as N/A for CLIN 0101.

Please provide.

The delivery date, quantity, ship to address, and

DODAAC/CAGE has been updated in amendment 0001.

Page 167, 171

3.0, Contents of the

Offer Submission of RFP Sections A through J and K

RFP, Section L

Table 2.0 on Page 167 is inconsistent with the number of copies for Volumes I, II, III, and IV on pages 171 and 172. Page 167 requests original, 5 copies of Volumes I & II, 3 copies of

Volumes III & IV,, and 2 CD ROMs. The header at the III & IV, bottom of Page 171 requests original and one copy. Please clarify.

Offerors should follow Table 2.0 on Page 167 for the number of copies for each Volume. The header on pg. 171 has been updated in amendment 0001.

(KTR)

SOLIC.

SECTION AND

PAGE (KTR)

GENERAL

SUBJECT

(KTR)

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

OR QUESTION (KTR) ANSWER

Page 6 2.1, Applicable

Documents

Statement of

Work (Section

2.1)

This references the 16-15 BRD. More current releases exist. Should this section be updated to reference the more recent versions?

The 16-15 BRD is sufficient for bidding purposes and matches the PSPEC provided in the GFI. A current version will be incorporated upon contract award.

Page 40 B2.3, Problem Reporting

Statement of

Work (Section

B3.2)

TI18 APB19 references 9410.2A for PTR classification. TI20 APB19 references PSPEC for PTR Classification. TI20 APB21 references

9410.2. Is this intentional, or should there be a single

reference?

It should be a single reference. It all should reference the

PSPEC in all cases. This has been updated in amendment

0001.

Statement of Work

(Section D3.1)

Page 53 D3.1, MOSA

Approach

Intro, Paragraphs a and b refer to “PCS.”

Recommend change to “TCS.”

The paragraph has been updated in amendment 0001

HQ C-2-0065,

Software

Development

Requirements

(NAVSEA) (JUN

2017)

RFP, Section C

(HQ C-2-0065

(2), (4), (8))

Section C Clause HQ C-2-0065 SOFTWARE

DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS

(NAVSEA) (JUN 2017) specifies ISO/IEC

12207:2008 (IEEE Std. 12207:2008) is to be used in the development of the Software Development Plan

(SDP). Section C Clause HQ C-2-0065 also specifies that the SDP adhere to the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15289:2017 document which provides mappings and other information based on references to ISO/IEC

12207:2008 (IEEE Std12207-2008). Attachment 1 -

Statement of Work specifies that the contractor use

ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207-2017 as the standard for the

SDP. Should the SOW specify that IEEE Std.

12207:2008 is the standard to be used for the development of the TCS SDP [CDRL A014]?

The standard has been updated in the clause in amendment

0001.

Page 149 Clauses

Incorporated by

Reference

RFP, Section K Clause 252.217-7026, Identification of Sources of

Supply, is not applicable to this contract. Request deletion.

No, the contract clause 252.217-7026 Identification of

Sources of Supply will not be removed. The clause will remain for the purpose of future orders.

Page 156 Clauses

Incorporated by

Reference

RFP, Section L Request deletion of Clause 252.215-7009, Proposal

Adequacy Checklist, as it is not applicable.

Yes, the clause 252.215-7009, has been deleted in

(KTR)

SOLIC.

SECTION AND

PAGE (KTR)

GENERAL

SUBJECT

(KTR)

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

OR QUESTION (KTR) ANSWER

Page 172 4.1, Volume I –

Technical Proposal

RFP, Section L Under 1. Factor (1): Technical Capability, “1.6

Software Engineering Management Plan (SEMP).”

Should this be, “1.6 System Engineering

Management Plan (SEMP)”?

The SEMP is the Systems Engineering Management Plan.

The RFP has been updated to fix this error in amendment

0001.

Page 43 Security

Information

RFP, Section C

“The contractor shall be required to have a

COMSEC for access to Secure Internet

Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) and the Wide

Area Integration Facility (WAIF) equipment. The contractor will require SIPRNet to ensure secure communication with the Program Office.” SIPRNet access is contract specific, so the contractor cannot obtain SIPRNet access for a particular program until award. Please clarify if a pre-existing SIPRNet installation is required prior to contract award or if

SIPRNet can be installed following contract award.

A pre-existing SIPRNet connection is not required, however it shall be installed as soon as practical.

Items 0008, 0101, 0102, 0201, 0202, 0301, 0302, 0401, 0402, 0501, 0502

RFP, Section E

“The Contractor shall deliver the DRR package, final software (including source code, executable code, software folders, engineering notes, and list of outstanding Problem Trouble Reports) and logistics documentation to the Government IDE within 7 calendar days of DRR approval.” Several of the above items are vague and are not currently listed as CDRLs. In the interest of providing concise criteria for acceptance, request the Government remove these general terms and fully describe them in a CDRL for each type of CLIN. For example, CLIN 0008 would not normally have a DRR. CLINs

0x01 are TCS development tasks and would not normally have a DRR but could deliver source code and documentation. CLINs 0x02 are BYG-1

Integration tasks which would have a DRR but not

BYG-1 wide (TCS, PCS, IA, etc.) source code delivery.

In addition, please clarify exactly what constitutes

The Government has updated Section E, to further clarify the final completion in amendment 0001.

(KTR)

SOLIC.

SECTION AND

PAGE (KTR)

GENERAL

SUBJECT

(KTR)

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

OR QUESTION (KTR) ANSWER

final completion of these CLINS for the purpose of PIF evaluation. For example, each

TI/APB baseline has multiple deliveries to various platforms. Is it the initial TI/APB delivery or the last delivery? A concern with using the last delivery is it could be several years after initial delivery.

Page 71 HQ F-1-

RFP, Section F Items 0001, 0003 are not listed as options in the RFP

Section B. Request the Government update this table.

Items 0001 and 0003 are not options and will be awarded on contract award, update will be in amendment 0001.

Page 67 Delivery

Information

RFP, Section F Item 0008 indicates delivery 24 months After Date of Contract (ADC). Should this be After Option

Exercise (AOE) to be consistent with Section B, page 5?

CLIN 0008 is not an option and Section B has been updated in amendment 0001.

Page 182 Section

4.2.2, Summary

Cost Data

Attachment 8

Attachment 8 LOE and Completion instructions indicate CY. Pleases confirm this is what is required

vs. Government FY. If CY is correct, is the purpose of the last tab ELEMENTs in the LOE for the conversion from CY to Government FY? If so, the formulas in the ELEMENTs tab do not align to the assumed start date of December 1, 2019 and the resulting CLIN period of performances thereafter. (Instead, they appear to just follow a

Government FY period of performance of 10/1 -

9/30.)

Request the Government update or provide direction for formula updates to be made by Offerors.

The Government has updated the workbooks. Offerors are advised to propose toward the anticipated award date that was mention on FBO and question 21.

Page 36 Note J RFP, Section B

CLINs 0008, 0101, and 0102 time periods include

FY2019 tasking. FBO notice indicates estimated contract award of December

2019 which is FY2020. Request the Government update this table.

The time periods have been updated in amendment 0001.

40 RFP (all sections) Please provide a copy of the RFP in Microsoft Word. A Microsoft Word version will be provided.

Page 2 4.0b.

Performance

Incentive Fee (PIF)

Attachment 4, PIF Plan

This section states, “Changes to evaluation criteria will be made in accordance with paragraph 5.0 below.” Should this reference be “paragraph 8.0”?

The update is reflected in Amendment 0001

(KTR)

SOLIC.

SECTION AND

PAGE (KTR)

GENERAL

SUBJECT

(KTR)

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

OR QUESTION (KTR) ANSWER

Plan, Evaluation

Criteria

Pages 199-200

2.5.1.8, Evaluation for Orders, and

2.5.1.9, Government's Total

Evaluated

Cost/Price

RFP, Section M

Paragraph 2.5.1.8 states the order CLINs will not be evaluated at this time, however, these CLINs are included in Figure 1, Government

Total Evaluated Cost. Please clarify whether these

CLINs will be evaluated and how to complete Steps

18 and 20 of the GTEP.

An update on the GTEC/P evaluation on the order CLINs

0005 and 0007 has been made in amendment 0001.

Page 188 Volume

III, 4.3.2 Factor (7)

Small Business

Subcontracting

Plan

Please do not include the subcontracting plan in the page count limitation of 50 for this Volume.

The subcontracting plan will not be included in the count.

The update is reflected in amendment 0001.

Product Planning

Chart (PPC)

RFP, Volume

L, Section

4.1.4.2

Given the T18A19 PPC is a multi-year chart, can the task elements be rolled-up to a high level and the detail task information be provided using Microsoft Project?

No, the information must be included as Microsoft Word or PDF.

HQ L-2-0016,

paragraph (a)

RFP, Volume

L, HQ L-2-

SOFTWARE

DEVELOPME

NT PLAN

(NAVSEA)

(DEC 2006)

Section L Clause HQ L-2-0016 specifies that "The initial SDP shall not be subject to the technical proposal page limitation of the solicitation" however the SDP is not listed in the Section L, 3.2 Page

Limitations table nor is the page limit exclusion addressed in the SDP section of the Technical

Volume (Section 4.1.1.3 on page 174). Request the page limitation exclusion be added to Section L 3.2 and/or Section L 4.1.1.3.

The SDP will not count towards the technical proposal page limitation. The update has been made in Section L in amendment 0001.

Pg. 72 – Contract

Clause 252.204-

0005 Line Item

Specific: by

Cancellation Date

Section G The Section G clause 252.204-0005 Line Item

Specific: by Cancellation Date, is no longer a payment type clause. Please update to a current payment type clause or clauses.

The RFP has been updated to reflect the correct payment instruction clause in the RFP amendment 0001.

Section B Are Orders going to be issued at contract award?

Orders will not be issued at contractor award, therefore they will be set as options. This change has been made in

48 Page 32 A13.1. Statement of Request the Government provide an electronic copy The Government will provide TMCR No. SNIPP-160115-

(KTR)

SOLIC.

SECTION AND

PAGE (KTR)

GENERAL

SUBJECT

(KTR)

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

OR QUESTION (KTR) ANSWER

IETM/Ready

Reference Manual

(RRM)

Work (SOW)

Section A13.

Integrated

Logistics

Support of TMCR NO. SNIPP-160115-000 as GFI for offerors to review and to properly address the IETM requirements of this solicitation in their responses.

000 as GFI 48. It will be part of amendment 1 and uploaded to AIMTC.

RFP Attachment

#1, SOW,

Appendix D

Page D-1

SHARED

ENGINEERIN

G AND

TECHNICAL

SERVICES

FOR USN

AND RAN

The Appendix refers to Level of Effort CLINs 0103, 0203, 0303, 0403, 0601, and

0701 which appears to be missing CLIN 0503.

Would the government revise the Appendix to include CLIN 0503 or provide guidance on the scope of CLIN 0503?

The SOW has been updated to include CLIN503 in

Appendix D. in amendment 0001

Hard Copy

Proposals

RFP Section

L2.1

PROPOSAL

FORMAT

AND

DELIVERY

INFORMATIO

N

Section L2.1 requires no more than 6 foldouts be included in the proposal.

The RFP also requires a Product Planning Chart

(PPC) in each of the following sections:

L4.1.1.1, 4.1.1.2, 4.1.4.2 and 4.1.4.3. Furthermore, section M2.4.2 states each PPC will be evaluated to ensure it includes: subcontractor activities, GFI acceptance, Program Reviews, Technical Reviews, AN/BYG-1 and SWFTS test and integration events, major acquisition milestones, delivery of software upgrades with new functionality and the introduction and delivery to the fleet. In addition, section M4.1.4.2 requires the start date, duration, end date, predecessor and successor relations for the Post

Award Conference (PAC), Preliminary Design

Review (PDR), Critical Design Review (CDR) or

Incremental Design Review (IDR), Delivery

Readiness Review (DRR) and should also include

Test Readiness Reviews (TRR), software tests, integration tests and delivery of all CDRLs.

PPCs of this complexity cannot be shown in a readable format on a single foldout page and maintain a minimum 8 point font. As such, 4 PPCs of 2 pages each would exceed the foldout maximum

The Government has made the update in Section L in amendment 0001 to allow 10 foldouts.

(KTR)

SOLIC.

SECTION AND

PAGE (KTR)

GENERAL

SUBJECT

(KTR)

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

OR QUESTION (KTR) ANSWER

and not allow foldouts for any other item.

Given the high level detail required for the PPCs, request the government change the limit of foldouts from 6 to 10.