N00421-18-R-0038_DRFP_Questions_-_5.pdf

1 DSOW 3.1.17, Insurance In addition to the minimum insurance coverage specified in Clause H-2 for

Vessel Collision Liability and Protection and Indemnity Liability Insurance, are there other contractor-provided minimum insurance coverage requirements?

The Final RFP will include NAVAIR clause 5252.228-9501 LIABILITY INSURANCE

(NAVAIR) (MAR 1999).

2 Section L, Part A, par. 2.1.2:

Will the Government please clarify the instructions for how proposal information shall be submitted? Please consider revising this paragraph to indicate that the electronic file format for the proposal documents shall be the default format used by Microsoft Word 2010, Microsoft Excel 2010, Microsoft PowerPoint

2010, and Microsoft Project 2010 applications. This suggestion would permit a wider range of Office versions to be used, comply with the intent of the original instruction, and remain in concord with paragraph 2.1.7.

The Final RFP has been updated to address this concern.

3 Section L, Volume 5- Cost

There is mention of proposing current employees, contingent hires, and proposed prospective hires. If we are proposing current employees, will the

Government expect these personnel to become employees on TSS upon award? Or, can the offeror propose current employees only to show that the offeror is able to hire personnel at the proposed rate?

The Government would expect the proposed current employees that meet the labor category requirements to become employees on Range Technical Support Services upon award. If the proposed individual is not currently employed by the company, this would be defined as a

Contingent hire. In this case, a Letter of Intent must be provided which includes the agreed to salary/hourly rate within the letter.

Section L, Part B Specific

Instructions, Section 2.2.d.

Section L, Part B Specific Instructions, Section 2.2.d. requires offerors to submit an approach for working with Government Flight Representatives to ensure ground and flight operations compliance with SOW 3.3.34. Ground and Flight

Operations appear to be critical areas for safety and performance success.

Will the Government require that offerors provide an initial Flight and Ground

Operations Plan with their proposal, and make that submission outside page count to ensure offerors can fully describe their approach?

The Government does not require Offerors to provide an initial Flight and Ground Operations

Plan with the Offeror's proposal.

Please provide more detail to describe the information technology and IT infrastructure resources that are associated with the test range. Such a description would provide the non-incumbents with a much better feel for what actually needs to be supported, related technical approaches, and relevant past performance.

IT and Cybersecurity systems, equipment, and infrastructure are listed in SOW Sections

3.3.19 System Administration, 3.3.20 Cybersecurity, and 3.3.21 Network Architectures.

Additional information will be provided upon award.

6 Section L Part A General

The paragraph says, "Proposal must demonstrate that the Offeror has a thorough understanding of all requirements and associated risks and is able, willing and competent to devote the resources necessary to meet all requirements." Do "all requirements" mean all SOW requirement or only the

Volume 2 Mission Support 4 Elements and with the 6 Evaluation Elements defined as special interest to the Government in the Volume 3 Corporate

Experience Section 3.1?

Please clarify the applicability of the opening paragraph in Section L Part A

General to the SOW requirements.

While Volume 2 only asks the offeror to address specific areas of the requirement, the offeror is still responsible for ensuring the response is IAW the requirements of the entire solicitation.

Section L Attachment L-2

CRM.XLS

The CRM provided by the Government has the SOW column filled in. Are the items provided by the Government in the SOW column examples, or are they only the SOW paragraphs the Government expects to see cross referenced in the respective proposal sections?

Please clarify if bidders are to modify the items in the CRM SOW column.

At a minimum, the offeror is responsible for addressing the requirements highlighted in the

CRM. If the offeror addresses additional requirements in the proposal, the offeror shall highlight the additional requirements in the Mission Support proposal.

Section L Part B Volume 5 paragraph 2.7

Regarding ODC. The RFP says "If the offeror's proposed approach results in additional cost related to materials, travel or ODCs, the additional cost must be added to the Government provided ODC estimates in the CA-1 …" Other sections of the RFP C41 require a Management Information System (MIS), Configuration Management tools and an approach to track Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM). These RFP requirements will likely entail

ODC for installation, license fees, and/or hardware. Some of these ODCs could be substantial and should include license fees for bidder's employees and

Government employees if they are to use the system(s). Since there are RFP required solutions, the mechanism to show these costs should be more formalized. How should bidders display these costs for a fair comparison?

Please modify the CA-1 attachment to show lines for the RFP required approaches. Add a mechanism to justify these costs are accurate such a BOE that includes installation hours and as quotes from vendors for the systems.

The Final RFP has been updated to address this concern.

In the prior Atlantic Test Range (ATR)/Atlantic Test and Marine Operations

(ATMO) (ATR/ATMO) Range Support Services acquisition (Solicitation

N0042111R0066), the Government provided Technical Exhibit 10 (TE10) in a file named: TE10_ATR-ATMO_Staffing_Information.xlsx. This exhibit provided a mapping of Labor Categories and quantities to Functional Support Areas

(such as Aerial Targets, Radar, etc.) and to the corresponding SOW reference.

Will the Government be providing this same type of information for the current acquisition?

The Government will provide the information requested with the Final RFP.

RFP Section C - Statement of Work (SOW), paragraph 1.3 Atlantic Targets and

Marine Operations Division states on page 255 that “ATMO has several major

East Coast activities located in Maryland, Virginia, and Florida, and also operates out of several remote satellite locations, including (but not limited to):

Mayport, FL; Pearl Harbor, HI, and the Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation

Center (AUTEC), and countries with coastlines on the Mediterranean Sea. This contract will not include support at the division’s Key West facility.” However, both SOW 3.4.1 Summary of Labor Categories and Attachment_CA-

1_Prime_Cost_Spreadsheet_2.20.xlxs list Engineering Technicians being located in Key West, FL. Would the Government clarify whether there are personnel normally assigned to Key West, FL?

The Final RFP has been updated to clarify the intent.

Contractor personnel will not normally be assigned to provide support at Key West, Florida.

Permanent assignment of personnel to Key West will occur if the Government exercises the optional CLIN for Countermeasures POD Support and be limited to tasking in SOW Section

3.3.38 Countermeasures Pod Support.

11 Section L Volume 4

Past Performance is to contain MS Excel formatted Table PP-1 with relevant contract data. Table G-2 indicates a list of files and naming conventions for the

Past Performance but it shows no file name(s) for Word text. Are the responses to Section L 4.3 including bidder's response to the relevancy, past performance information and demonstrated systemic improvement to be contained in a

MSWord text file or must the responses all be placed in the MS Excel formatted

Table PP-1?

Please clarify if there is MSWord text as part of the Past Performance section or if all responses must be included in the PP-1 MS Excel tables?

The PP-1 (Excel) will contain a brief description and Volume 4 (MS Word) will contain a detailed comparitive analysis and the systemic improvement discussion.

Section L Volume 3

Corporate Experience is to contain MS Excel formatted Table CE-1 with applicable contract data related to each Corporate Experience Element. Table

G-2 indicates a list of files and naming conventions for the Corporate

Experience but it shows no file name(s) for Word text. Are the responses to

Section L 3.1 including the comparative analysis for the 6 Corporate Experience elements to be contained in a MSWord text file or must the responses all be placed in the MS Excel formatted Table CE-1?

Please clarify if there is MSWord text as part of the Corporate Experience section or if all responses must be included in the CE-1 MS Excel tables?

The CE-1 (Excel) will contain a brief description and Volume 3 (MS Word) will contain a detailed comparitive analysis.

13 Section L Volume 1-4

The tables ES-1, ES-2, CE-1, PP-1 are all in MS Excel format. The evaluators will be reading significant amounts of text in spreadsheet cells which has limited formatting capability. Initial work on these tables indicates the cells can get very long and exceed the screen height making reading, movement between and evaluation of the contents difficult. Can the bidders change the column width of the table so that the automatic word wrap does not make such long cells?

Clarify if bidders can change the column width of the MS Excel files?

Bidders can change Column width

14 Section L Volume 3

Section 3.1 says "In a paragraph to a page per contract reference, for each element in 3.1.1 through 3.1.6 below describe the extent to which previous

Corporate Experience…" Is this "paragraph to a page" to go in the MS Excel

Table CE-1 or is it to go in a MS Word File as part of Volume 3 CE?

Please clarify what is meant by a paragraph to a page - is it in the CE-1 MS

Excel or MS Word?

The CE-1 (Excel) will contain a brief description and Volume 3 (MS Word) will contain a detailed comparitive analysis.

The "paragraph to page" reference instructions is for the MS Word, Vol 3 comparitive analysis instructions.

15 Section L Volume 4

Questions and answers 87 (from the April 5th Q&A release) stated the "The offeror should provide a comparative analysis between the Past Contract reference requirements and the RFP requirements (i.e., SOW) for the future effort." To confirm does the PP-1 and associated comparative analysis address all elements of the NAVAIR NAWCAD RANGE TECHNICAL SUPPORT

SERVICES STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) and not just the 6 elements shown in CE-1?

Please confirm the PP-1 should address all the SOW.

The information provided in PP-1 will be used to address the relevancy of the past reference contract to the future effort (RFP solicitation requirements).

The offeror is instructed to provide a comparative analysis that addresses the similiarity between the two efforts, which could include all SOW requirements.

Section L Volume 3 and

Volume 4

Both Volume 3 and Volume 4 require comparative analysis of elements, with

Section 3 appearing to be a subset of Section 4. This data would appear to be the same the data in both volumes. Does the Government expect the data to be the same?

Clarify if the comparative analysis between Volume 3 and Volume 4 can be repetitive for certain sections.

It is correct that Experience is looking at a subsection of the entire contract requirements.

The Past Performance evaluation will look at all Past Contract data that is relevant to the future solcitation requirements.

The response to each Section should enable the evaluator to understand how the past contract reference is similiar to the future solication requirements.

Section L Volume 4 and

Attachment L-5 Table PP-1

Past Performance Contract

Data

Attachment L-5 Table PP-1 Past Performance Contract Data, Item 14 (MS

Excel cell B17) asks for a brief Work Description and/or Program Responsibility for this past contract. Some of our reference contracts have very diverse scope and responsibility. Is there a word limit on the brief description?

Please clarify how many words or sentences the Government is looking for in cell B17.

This solicitation does not place a limit on the amount of "words or sentences" provided by an

Offeror, however, Microsoft Excel places a character limit of 32,767 characters per each cell.

If an Offeror exceeds the Microsoft Excel cell character limit when providing information, the

Offeror may add a consecutive cell below to present the information.

Section L Volume 4 and

Attachment L-5 Table PP-1

Past Performance Contract

Data

Attachment L-5 Table PP-1 Past Performance Contract Data, Item 14 (MS

Excel cell B18 and 19) asks for "PWS/SOW paragraphs from contract reference associated with Engineering, Operations, or Maintenance Services for training, or test and evaluation." The PP-1 instructions say to "Provide the applicable PWS/SOW (Annex A) paragraph numbers from the contract reference to show which portion(s) of the contract reference are relevant to this

RFP." A list of paragraph numbers in an MS Excel file could be unwieldy to read.

To confirm, is this cell only to contain the paragraph numbers? or also the paragraph titles (if there are any) or the complete text of the contract reference

PWS/SOW? Is the comparative analysis to follow the paragraph in this cell?

Please clarify what is to go in PP-1 Item 14 (MS Excel Cells B18 and B19).

Attachment L-5 Table PP-1 Past Performance Contract Data, Item 14/ (MS Excel Cell C18, C19, C20) should only contain the applicable PWS/SOW (Annex B) paragraph numbers from the contract reference. The comparative analysis of the past performance contract references shall be provided in Volume 4 (Past Performance), Section 4.3 (Evaluation).

Section L Volume 4 and

Attachment L-5 Table PP-1

Past Performance Contract

Data

Attachment L-5 Table PP-1 Past Performance Contract Data, Item 14 (MS

Excel cell B18 and B19) asks for "PWS/SOW paragraphs from contract reference associated with Engineering, Operations, or Maintenance Services for training, or test and evaluation." Contract references will have many

PWS/SOW paragraphs that relate to these areas. For example, one of our contract references will have over 300 paragraphs references related to

Engineering, Operations, or Maintenance Services. Just the paragraph numbers alone will create a massive MS Excel cell entry spanning multiple computer screens and pages when printed that will be very difficult for the evaluators to read. a.) Are bidders to put all the contract reference PWS/SOW numbers in this one cell? b.) Adding the contract reference PWS/SOW numbers and titles will make the cell even larger. Are bidders to place the

PWS/SOW titles in this cell? c.) Are bidders to place the Comparative analysis in this cell as well?

Please clarify what goes in the spreadsheet and recommend using MS Word text files for bidders to provide this data.

a) Yes

b) Yes

c) No, a brief description of the work performed will be contained in Cell "C17". The detailed comparitive analysis will be provided in Volume 4 for each contract reference.

Section L Volume 4 and

Attachment L-5 Table PP-1

Past Performance Contract

Data

Attachment L-5 Table PP-1 Past Performance Contract Data, Item 14 (MS

Excel cell B19) asks for b. PWS/SOW paragraphs from contract references associated with customer supported DOD, FAA, or NASA. a.) It seems that this cell will be requiring us to include all the PWS/SOW paragraphs from DOD, FAA or NASA contracts. Is that correct? b.) If a DOD, NASA or FAA contract has Engineering, Operations or Maintenance Services, the PWS/SOW paragraphs will be included in the cell above in PP-1 and this cell will be redundant for those areas.

Please clarify exactly what is to go in MS Excel cell B19 from bidder's DOD, NASA or FAA contracts.

The Intent is for the offeror to indicate which Attribute (DOD, FAA, or NASA) is relevant in the comparitive analysis via Volume 4 and "cell C17" and indicate the associated past contract

PWS/SOW paragraph number in "cell C19".

Section L Volume 4 and

Attachment L-5 Table PP-1

Past Performance Contract

Data

Attachment L-5 Table PP-1 Past Performance Contract Data, Item 14 (MS

Excel cell B19) asks for b. PWS/SOW paragraphs from contract references associated with customer supported DOD, FAA, or NASA. Are contract references limited to DOD, NASA or FAA? Can bidders use citations from other

US Government agencies that are applicable?

Please clarify if contract citations are limited to DOD, NASA and FAA or can bidders use other Government agencies as applicable.

The contract citations are limited to the relevancy definition. (DOD, FAA, or NASA)

Attachment L-5 Table PP-1 Past Performance Contract Data, Item 14 (MS

Excel cell B20 asks for "c. PWS/SOW paragraphs from contract reference associated with Air, Land, Surface, Under Sea Range(s) or Lab(s)" a.) It seems that this cell will be requiring us to include all of the PWS/SOW paragraphs from Air, Land, Surface, Under Sea Range(s) or Lab(s) If a an Air, Land and

Sea contract overlaps a DOD, NASA or FAA contract or it has Engineering, Operations or Maintenance Services, the PWS/SOW paragraphs will be included in the MS Excel cells above in PP-1 and this cell will be redundant for those areas. IS this a correct understanding?

Please clarify exactly what is to go in MS Excel B20 regarding Air, Land, Surface, Under Sea Range(s) or Lab(s).

Yes, this is the correct understanding concerning an entry for each line.

The Intent is for the offeror to indicate which Attribute (Air, Land, Surface, Under Sea

Range(s) or Lab(s)) is relevant in the comparitive analysis via Volume 4 and "cell C17" and indicate the associated past contract PWS/SOW paragraph number in "cell C20".

Section L Volume 3 Mission

Support 2.3 a.

The paragraph requires implementation of an MIS. When will the Government expect the MIS to be installed?

Please clarify when the MIS needs to be installed.

The MIS shall be operational on day one of the base period of performance.

2.1.7

File Naming Convention Table

G-2

This contact information shall include a name, address, phone number, and email address (including JV Team Members), with whom the Government may coordinate any issues and obtain responses as needed. Offerors are advised that if it does not submit the Release of Adverse Past Performance

Authorization Letters with written consent, then the Government will address any past performance issues directly with the principal entity (including JV

Team Members), and the Offeror will forfeit the opportunity to participate in any related discussions.

The naming convention supplied in G-2 (PP POC Info#.docx) implies a separate letter should be submitted with the POC information.

Will the government please clarify if a separate file should be submitted outside of the Past Performance volume containing the POC data?

The Offeror shall provide all documentation for the Release of Adverse Past Performance

Authorization Letters under the file naming convention of and/or Past Performance Point of

Contact Information under the file naming convention stated in Section L, Table G-2.

2.1.7

File Naming Convention Table

G-2

The naming convention requirement to name files in the Past Performance section has a specific call out for the PPQs listed as separate documents.

Will the government please clarify:

1) Is there a requirement to submit the PPQs as part of the overall proposal submission as well as to the referenced contract POC for return to the government?

2) Are the PPQs to be included within the PP volume as well?

Completed PPQs will be submitted directly from the Customer to the Government. However, the offeror should indicate who the PPQs were submitted to for the Government to follow-up, if necessary.

26 Section L.4.1

Proposal Submission and Packaging and Q&A released on 3/2/19 and 4/5/19

Table CE-1 (Corporate Experience Element Contract Reference Matrix); and

Annex B (Final Versions of Previous SOW/PWSs/Other Supporting

Documentation for Past Performance and Corporate Experience) be submitted three weeks prior to the submission date/time specified on Standard Form 33

(Block 9).

Q&A released on 3/26/19 item #3 states there will no early submissions of PP information required and it will be removed in the RFP.

Q&A released on 4/5/19 items #8 and #9 state the early submission will be changed from 3 weeks to 2 weeks after RFP release.

Will the government please clarify which is correct?

The Request for early information will be decreased from Three to Two weeks prior to proposal submission.

The Final RFP will include an updated to reflect "Two weeks".

Part B, Volume 1 – Executive

Summary

Paragraph C – Mission Support and Q&A released on 3/2/19 and 4/5/19

Executive Summary section 1.0.c Mission Support.

Q&A released on April 5 item #60 lists the elements for mission support requirements to be detailed. Q&A released on 3/26/19 items #5, #8, and #29 state the requirement for the Mission Support Summary located in Section L, Part B, Volume I will be removed in the FRFP.

Will the government please clarify which is correct?

These questions are addressing two different Volumes and the instructions associated with each.

The Volume 1, Executive Summary, will no longer request a " Mission Support" summary as part of the proposal submission.

However, the offeror is required to address the Section L instructions for Volume 2, Mission

Suport, in the proposal submission.

Part B, Volume 2 – Mission

Support

The Offeror shall complete Table MS-1 (Mission Support CRM), provided in

Attachment (L-2) and submit it as the first page of Volume 2 (Mission Support), and as a seperate electronic file.

Will the government please clarify if the CRM is to be the first page before the cover page and table of contents or to be included as the first section following both the cover page and table of contents?

The MS-1 (Mission Support CRM) shall be the first page after the Volume 2 Cover Page and

Table of Contents.

2.4 Small Business

Management and 2.1.7

File Naming Convention Table

G-2

L.2.4a(4) The Offeror shall provide Annex A (Small Business Subcontracting

Plan and Table SB-1 Small Business Requirement).

Will the government please clarify if Annex A is to be included within the

Mission Support Volume 2 or should Annex A be submitted as a stand alone file and submitted as a separate file / document as indicated in Table G-2?

Annex A should be submitted as a stand alone file.

30 Relevant Contract Data L.4.2

For each contract identified for past performance in Table ES-2 (Relevant

Contract Summary) provided in Attachment L-1 (Executive Summary Tables), the Offeror shall complete Attachment L-5 Table PP-1 (Past Performance

Contract Data), according to the instructions within the attachment and submit it within this section and as a separate electronic file.

Will the government please clarify if each reference (Table ES-2) is to be submitted as a separate electronic file, or is one file with all Table ES-2 references included sufficient?

For each reference provided in Attachment L-1 (Table ES-2), the Offeror shall provide a separate tab in Attachment L-5 Table PP-1.

Volume IV L.4.3

Paragraph a

Relevancy. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the referenced contracts are deemed relevant, as defined by Section M, to this solicitation’s requirements. To demonstrate relevancy, Offerors shall provide a comparative analysis to the scope, magnitude, and complexity or similarity of this solicitation’s requirements. Within the comparative analysis, Offerors should identify the relevant portions (sections, paragraphs, and page numbers) of the referenced contract’s SOW/PWS (Annex B) to clearly identify how past efforts performed are similar to this solicitation’s requirements. In addition, the referenced sections only need to be identified and the full text does not need to be broken out separately from the complete SOW/PWS.

The DRFP states a comparative analysis is to be provided in terms of scope, magnitude, and complexity. It continues on to say we should identify only the relevant portions (sections, paragraphs….).

Will the government please clarify no additional text is required and PWS references only will suffice to meet the requirements of this section as the words comparative analysis imply further discussion is required.

Offeror's must use the comparative analysis in Volume 4 in order to demonstrate relevancy of the identified PWS/SOW references.

32 H-2

Vessel Collision Liability and Protection and Indemnity Liability Insurance. The

DRFP states that the “contractor shall procure and maintain during the entire period of perfor-mance under this contract the minimum insurance amount of

$1,000,000 for Vessel Collision and Liability and Protection and Indemnity

Liability”. This maritime P&I insurance provides liability risk coverage associated with the operation of vessels but typically does not cover damage to own-ship hull and machinery damage resulting from collision. This own-ship hull damage coverage, if required, is typically provided under separate Marine Hull and Machinery insurance (Hull Insurance) policy. Will the government please confirm that additional Hull Insurance coverage is not required to be obtained by the contractor for the ATMO vessel operations?

Previously, the Government indicated the Final RFP would require additional hull coverage in the Section H-2 Vessel Collision Liability and Protection and Indemnity Liability Insurance.

However, a seperate Marine Hull and Machinery insurance (Hull Insurance) policy is not required for ATMO vessel operations and will not be included in the Final RFP.

Section L, Part A, Paragraph 3

Section L, Part B, Paragraph 3

Section L, Part A, Paragraph 3 of the Draft RFP states, "The Offeror must present its proposal information in a manner that facilitates a one for one comparison between the information presented and Section L proposal instructions. Proposal information must be structured such that its paragraph numbers/letters correspond to the proposal instructions paragraph numbers/letters, although the Offeror may add lower tier sub paragraphs."

And Section L, Part B, Paragraph 3 of the Draft RFP states, "Corporate experience information provided shall be: for similar programs/contracts (as defined in section 3.1 (Evaluation Elements)) ; ..."

These two Section L excerpts cast doubt on the correct outline for the proposal.

Following the Section L, Part A, Paragraph 3 requirement, then the Corporate

Experience would be divided among the six evaluation elements. However, following the Section L, Part B, Paragraph 3 requirement would seem to indicate that the Offeror would present each Corporate Experience as a whole, and that the responses to 3.1.1 through 3.1.6 would be sub-components of that response (violating the Section L, Part B, Paragraph 3 requirement). What is the desired presentation of the CE data - each citation, then each evaluation element, or each Evaluation element listing the various citations under the element?

Please clarify how the Government desires the Corporate Experience to be presented. We recommend that the Evaluation Elements be treated as sub-components of each Corporate Experience, which allows each Corporate

Experience to be presented together as a whole.

In Volume 3, the Offeror shall address each element and indicate which citation/contract demonstrates experience. However, the Attachment L-3, Table CE-1, will contain a tab per contract reference.

34 Key Personnel

In the Government's DRFP Questions document published on March 26, 2019, the Government states in question number 49 "The Key labor category of "Field

Engineer, Ariel Targets Site Lead" will be renamed in the Final RFP." Also, slide

71 of the Pre-Solicitation Conference Briefing stated “1) Note: “Field Engineer, Aerial Targets Site Lead, Senior”, will be renamed “Operations Manager, Aerial

Targets Journeyman” in Final RFP.”

Would the Government please provide updated Labor Category Description and Qualifications for the Operations Manager, Aerial Targets Journeyman key position to enable contractors to recruit key candidates in the appropriate labor category as soon as possible?

The updated labor categories will be released with the Final RFP.

Section L – Mission Support -

2.3

Technology/Systems/Process

Approach

What level of detail must be provided for a proposed approach or process falling under this paragraph?

The Final RFP will provide additional instructions related to this paragraph. To summarize, the Offeror is required to address the four areas identified in Section L, 2.3. In addition, an

Offeror may propose up to two additional areas of technology/systems/process approaches.

Any technology/systems/process approaches proposed under this section will be added to the contract and will have its own CLIN incorporated in to Section B. Based on that methodology, it is important that Offerors provide enough detail in the description of the technology/systems/process approach so as to ensure that all parties fully understand the proposed approach and any assumptions or caveats being made by the Offeror. Since the approach would have its own CLIN, the Government would need to know the period of time associated with the implementation of the proposed approach or, if a deliverable, the projected date the deliverable is anticipated to be delivered to the Government. Depending on the proposed approach, a CDRL may have to be created with the details of the approach or deliverable. As a result, the Government would require enough detail in the proposal to prepare such a CDRL.