B08_NGLD-M Final Solicitation Responses.pdf

Q# RFP Document Section # Page Text Reference from RFP Comment/Question to the Government Response

Due to the significant change in the cost evaluation model to now including 8 years of production pricing, would the Government please consider extending the proposal due date to 29 JAN 2021?

In order to provide both accurate and competitive pricing for the 8-years production period, offerors should be soliciting multiple competitive quotes from their supplier base.

While offerors are doing everything possible to expedite this quoting process, completing this process across the federal holiday season, complicated by company shutdowns and personnel furloughs as a result of COVID-19, it will be extremely challenging to solicit and received this volume of data in the timeframe available. Lack of firm quote information results in lower fidelity estimates and overall higher proposed cost when engineering estimates are used to cover the risk of the unknown pricing ranges.

The September 2020 DRFP implied production pricing would not be required, as it was not included cost model included with that package. As such industry had not been preparing to respond with this extended level of cost detail.

While we agree including production pricing as criteria for the proposal best-value evaluation is critical for the Government to have a full understanding of proposed offers, industry simply needs more time to develop proper estimates.

The Government will extend the solicitation to 13 Jan

2021.

1.

W15P7T-21-R- 0001_v12_16+Nov

+2020.pdf

SECTION

A -

SUPPLEM

ENTAL

INFORMA

TION

7. Proposals in response to this RFP, W15P7T-21-R-0001, are due by 23 December 2020 no later than 5:00pm (Eastern Time).

+2020.pdf H.1 80

- RFP H.1- Summary of Post Award Procedures states “…development option 2 to complete the development to achieve NSA certification for the NGLD-M.”

Can the Government please define the completion/exit criteria for Development Option 2?

A02+NGLD-

M+IDIQ+PWS_FI

NAL.docx

6.2 IDIQ

PWS 14

- IDIQ PWS 6.2

Engineering and Developmental Support states “This initial TO will culminate in a final design with PPUs that will be used for initial testing and support of a Programmatic Milestone C decision.”

There are conflicting definitions throughout the body of RFP documents as to when Development Option 2 completes. For example:

A02+NGLD-

M+Engineering+D evelopment+PWS_

FINAL.docx

6 10

- Engineering PWS Table 2 NGLD-M Millstones: NSA certification occurs at month 33, PRR/LRIP decision occurs at month 34, OTRR/FAT/TDP/TO

Complete Occurs at Month 35.

- Section H.1 indicates that Dev Option 2 concludes with NSA certification

- IDIQ PWS 6.2: indicates that Dev Option 2 ends with delivery of PPUs

The end of development option 2 shall deliver an NSA certified device that meets the NGLD-M requirements

2.

- The ENG PWS milestone schedule indicates that an LRIP decision will be made at month 34, one month after NSA certification is received, indicating if an LRIP decision is made in month 34, then OTRR/FAT/TDP (occurring month

35) would occur under a separate LRIP Task Order.

Offerors is looking for clarification to ensure correct scope is proposed under this initial task order.

Related to Question 1 above, can the Government clarify which of the Product Support/Training activities are required as part of the initial development TO?

The Engineering Development PWS defines the requirements for the initial development TO.

Does the Government anticipate conduct of training (per 6.5.4.1) would occur during the initial task order? Or on a subsequent task order?

The Engineering Development PWS defines the requirements for the initial development TO.

Does the Government anticipate the Verification event (per 6.5.4.6) would occur during the initial task order? Or on a subsequent task order?

The Government anticipates a verification event during the initial task order as it is a requirement of the Engineering Development

PWS.

3.

A02+NGLD-

M+Engineering+D evelopment+PWS_

FINAL.docx

6.5.4 23

4.

+2020.pdf H2 80

RFP Section H2, Option Exercise Decision (OED), page 80, states, “The Government reserves the right to conduct an OED for awarding options during the development phase.” Section H2.1, Option Exercise Decision (OED) Process, page 80, states, “If an OED is required…”

Can the Government please clarify under what circumstances the OED would be required vs optional?

The Government advises the Offeror to review the entirety of paragraph H2 of the RFP.

5.

+2020.pdf L1. 146

Can the Government please clarify the intent of this paragraph is for awareness only and offerors responses should be the focus the specific references to requirements contained within Section L and M? To include elements of the IDIQ PWS, as applicable, even though it is not specifically referenced in this paragraph?

The Government confirms that paragraph L1 is for reference only is a lead in paragraph to the RFP instructions.

A02+NGLD-

M+Engineering+D evelopment+PWS_ FINAL.docx

5.2 8

5.2 Applicable Documents, Table

1 – References; DRAFT Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the NSA and PEO C3T/PL Net E Concerning the NGLD-M Under the User Partnership Agreement (UPA)

In order for bidders to fully understand the details of Government’s User Partnership Agreement (UPA), can the Government please provide a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the NSA and PEO C3T/PL Net E that is cited in the reference documents?

The Government will update the Bidder's Library to include the signed MOA.

# Category RFP Doc Reference (Paragraph Number and Section) Question / Recommendation Response

1.

Pricing

W15P7T-21-R- 0001_v12_16 Nov

Section B, page 69, CLIN 3002 lists LRIP materials but the pricing template does not include a line for this CLIN.

Will the Government please update the pricing template or solicitation document as appropriate?

The Government will update the Template provided in the solicitation.

W15P7T-21-R- 0001_v12_16 Nov

Offerors are required to provide FRP “unit prices for all ranges and years” and FRP is included in the Total Proposed on the “CLIN Summary” tab of the pricing template.

B08_ RFP_NGLD M_

Pricing Template Spreadsheet_4 Nov

According to Section M2.2, page 168, “the offerors cost proposal will be evaluated for award purposes:

(a) based upon the total cost/price proposed for basic requirements (basic award) to include the Program Management SOW and Engineering Development PWS (referred to as initial Task Order for this section), Travel, Materials, ODC, and LRIP.”

2.

It appears there is discrepancy between the pricing template and the solicitation document. Will FRP pricing for all years be included in the Total Proposed Price for evaluation purposes? If so, will the Government please update Section M to account for that change in the evaluation?

Pricing

The Government will update the RFP solicitation to included production in the referenced section for Total Evaluated Cost/Price.

3.

Pricing

W15P7T-21-R- 0001_v12_16 Nov

L25.6, SECTION 3 Sanitized Cost Proposal, page 156, states “It shall be the same as the cost proposal but with all costs/prices deleted.”

It is unclear what is required to be submitted in Section 3 of the Cost/Price Volume. Is the Government requesting the Pricing Template (Excel) with fully burdened costs/prices (non-proprietary data) or does the Government want to see Cost Volume (word/pdf) with all supporting documentation and estimating methodology without costs/prices? Request the Government provide additional guidance on what is required to be submitted in Section 3 to ensure compliant proposals.

The Government is requesting that Offeror's submit a Sanitized Cost Proposal in relation to supporting cost data that is summarized in the provided cost template in the solicitation.

4.

Pricing

W15P7T-21-R- 0001_v12_16 Nov

L27.7, Section 1 Pricing Template, page 157, states “Additional information required to support the price information provided in the Government-provided pricing templates shall be submitted as a part of the price volume in Section 3”.

According to the Volume Organization, Section 3 is Sanitized Cost Proposal. Will the Government please update the language in L27.7 to change Section 3 to Section 1 Cost Narrative?

The Government will update the solicitation to correct this error.

5.

Pricing

W15P7T-21-R- 0001_v12_16 Nov

Section 2 Pricing template, page 157, is currently RFP section L27.7, which follows section L25.6.6.

Will the Government please update Section 2 Pricing Template to L25.6.7?

The Government will update the solicitation to correct this error.

6.

Section I - Contract Clauses

W15P7T-21-R- 0001_v12_16 Nov

I-202 52.244-2 SUBCONTRACTS, page 102 item (d), states “If the Contractor has an approved purchasing system, the Contractor nevertheless shall obtain the Contracting Officer's written consent before placing the following subcontracts:

Greater than $3,000.”

Will the Government revise the “Greater than $3,000.” from part

(d) of 52.244-2 to “Greater than $1M”? This requirement could have adverse impacts on production schedules due to the administrative delay in receiving approval to release subcontracts above this threshold.

The Government will update the solicitation to remove "Greater than $3,000" from the clause.

L12, page 148, provides the file naming convention of “xxxxTECH12232020.docx (or

PDF) *”

L14, page 148, states “the technical volume of the proposal shall be submitted as either a Microsoft Word 2013 or newer file, and as an Adobe PDF document.”

L21.b, page 149, further states “All proposal volumes shall be submitted in either Microsoft Word 2013 or newer file, and as Adobe Acrobat, Portable Document Format (Adobe PDF), Version XI; except the Pricing Proposal, which shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel 2013 or newer file.”

7.

0001_v12_16 Nov

Will the Government please confirm Offerors are only required one version of each proposal volume, either in MS Word or Adobe PDF, not both?

General Offerors are to submit the proposals based on the instructions provided in Section L of the solicitation.

8.

General

W15P7T-21-R- 0001_v12_16 Nov

L12, page 147, states “The Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) shall be considered separate and not confined to page limitations of the proposal and shall be included as an appendix to Volume

III”

Review of the IMS is integral to understanding the Offerors technical and management approach. Will the Government amend RFP Section L Instructions and Section M Evaluation Criteria stating that the IMS will also be made available to the Volume II evaluation team?

The Government will not update the solicitation based on this request.

9.

General

W15P7T-21-R- 0001_v12_16 Nov

L12, page 147, lists Volume V as “Small Business Participation”, whereas L27, page 158, lists Volume V as “Small Business Participation Factor”. No other volume titles have “Factor” in the name.

For consistency, will the Government remove “Factor” from the Volume V title in section L27?

The Government will update the solicitation based on the comment.

10.

Demonstratio ns

W15P7T-21-R- 0001_v12_16 Nov

L24.1.1, page 151, states “Offerors can use a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation or written handouts/pamphlets to help facilitate the demonstration but the information can only be an excerpt from the Technical Volume of the Proposal.”

In consideration of a PowerPoint, will the Government confirm offerors may use illustrations and graphics such as bulleted text, graphics, diagrams, pictures / photographs different from those in the written proposal as long as the text, graphic, diagrams, pictures, photographs do not include any additional technical data than what is included in the written proposal?

The Offeror shall comply with the instructions provided in paragraph L24.1.1 of the solicitation.

11.

Technical

W15P7T-21-R- 0001_v12_16 Nov

L24.4, page 153, is first titled Sub-Factor 1.2.

UAS Approach/KMI Implementation. Following on page 154, Sub-Factor 1.3: Management is also RFP section L24.4.

Will the Government please update Sub-Factor 1.3:

Management to L24.5 and adjust subsequent sections (e.g. Sub- Factor 1.4: Production will now be L24.6)?

The Government will update the solicitation based on the comment.

12.

Technical

W15P7T-21-R- 0001_v12_16 Nov

L24.4.4 Element 1.2.4: Security Design, page 153, states “The Offeror shall describe the NGLD-M UAS architecture and the methodology to incorporate the security requirements to accommodate the Security Requirements for NSA Certification and Authority To Operate (ATO) on DoD networks Risk Management Framework

(RMF”

Will the Government please identify if the content ending on page 153 is simply a typo (missing the closing parenthesis) or whether a portion of the requirement has been truncated and deleted in error?

The Government will update the solicitation based on the comment.

13.

Technical

W15P7T-21-R- 0001_v12_16 Nov

L27.7, page 157, states “Additional information required to support the price information provided in the Government-provided pricing templates shall be submitted as a part of the price volume in Section 3.”

As Section 3 is now the sanitized cost proposal, will the Government please confirm this requirement is no longer applicable and remove accordingly?

The Government will update the RFP to modify the referenced sentence in the comment to "Additional information required to support the price information provided in the Government-provided pricing templates shall be submitted as a part of the price volume."

14.

Technical

W15P7T-21-R- 0001_v12_16 Nov

M2.1.a.c, Sub-factor 1.1, Element 1.1.3: Security, page 164, states “Strengths may be given to security such as but not limited to: use of NSA certified parts or components;”

Will the Government provide access to the lists of NSA certified parts or components beyond the components listed within the CSfC components list?

The Government does not have a list of NSA certified parts or components to support the solicitations.

15.

Technical

W15P7T-21-R- 0001_v12_16 Nov

M2.1.c, page 166, is first titled Sub-Factor 1.3.

Management. Following on page 167, Sub-Factor 1.4: Production is also RFP section M2.1.c.

Will the Government please update Sub-Factor 1.4:

Production to M2.1.d?

The Government will update the solicitation based on the comment.

16.

Program Management

A02 NGLD-M IDIQ

PWS_FINAL

IDIQ PWS Section 6.1, page 9, states “The contractor shall manage all aspects of the contractor’s responsibilities as defined in the base contract and all TOs and DOs…. The contractor shall maintain continuity of operations during the duration of the base contract and awarded options.”

To ensure consistency in the structure of offerors pricing, is it the Government’s intent to issue a follow-up Task Order for program management during LRIP and full rate production years as a separate Task Order or as part of unit pricing?

The Government's intent is to include program management functions in all future Task Orders and Delivery Orders in lieu of a separate TO for program management.

Past Performance

Beta.Sam.gov posting (25 Nov 2020)

Beta.Sam.gov posting, states “The document found in Section J, Attachment 0010, entitled Past Performance Questionnaire, is the

W15P7T-21-R- 0001_v12_16 Nov aforementioned required format Offerors shall use in order to submit past performance information.

Beta.Sam.gov posting (25 Nov 2020)

Beta.Sam.gov posting, states “The document found in Section J, Attachment 0010, entitled Past Performance Questionnaire, is the aforementioned required format Offerors shall use in order to submit past performance information.

17.

Will the Government please clarify if Offerors should provide the content requested within B08_Past Performance Questionnaire.docx in the Offeror’s format as part of the Volume IV response or if Offerors should provide completed B08_Past Performance Questionnaire Section I responses as an appendix utilizing the Government attachment without Offeror headers and footers?

The Government provided clarification to the solicitation on 25 Nov 20.

0001_v12_16 Nov

L26.2, page 157, states “Include rationale supporting the assertion of relevance.”

L26.3, page 158, states “Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the Offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk..” “..The Offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. Categorize the relevant information into the specific technical sub-factors used to evaluate the proposal.”

A02 NGLD-M IDIQ

PWS_FINAL

A02_NGLD-M_Program Management SOW, Section 6.1.5.1 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), page 9, states: "The IMS shall be used in conjunction with the Monthly Performance Report, and shall be updated and submitted to the Government on a quarterly basis for review and comment.".

A02_NGLD-

M_Program Management

SOW_FINAL

A02 NGLD-M IDIQ PWS, Section 6.1.6 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), page 11, states: "The IMS shall be used in conjunction with the Monthly Performance Report, and shall be updated and submitted to the Government on a monthly basis for review and comment."

IMS A02 NGLD-M IDIQ

PWS_FINAL

The Government will update the IDIQ PWS in the solicitation to align with the Program Management SOW.

18.

B08_Past Performance Questionnaire.docx indicates Offeror response is restricted to Section I of the PPQ template, which does not contain any fields applicable to the relevance requirements identified in Section L instructions. To ensure a compliant response to section L relevancy requirements, will the Government please confirm that Offerors may address relevancy requirements within Volume IV, outside of the PPQ template?

19.

Is the IMS to be delivered to the Government on a quarterly or monthly basis?

IMS

The Offeror shall comply with the Section L solicitation instructions.

Past Performance

A02_NGLD-M_Program Management SOW, page 18 A003: Program Protection

A02_NGLD-

M_Program Management

SOW_FINAL

Delivery (Schedule)

A02 NGLD-M IDIQ

PWS_FINAL

In the Management CDRL list, page 29, CDRL R001 Small Business Utilization Report was added to the final IDIQ PWS.

A02_NGLD-

M_Program Management

SOW FINAL

The Program Management SOW, page 19, does not include CDRL R001 Small Business Utilization Report.

The Government advises the Offeror to review paragraph 6.1.7 as it references CDRL R001 as a deliverable.

The Government will update the Program Management SOW in the solicitation to align with the IDIQ PWS.

21.

For consistency, will the Government update the Management SOW (page 19) with CDRL R001 Small Business Utilization Report?

20.

page 18, A003: Program Protection Implementation Plan, states that the due date is "30 days after contract award", but A02 NGLD-M IDIQ PWS, page 29, A003: Program Protection Implementation Plan, states that the due date is "60 days after contract award".

Is A003's due date 30 or 60 days after Contract Award?

Q# Question Response

L24.4 Sub factor 1.2 UAS Approach/KMI Implementation states "Use of the Government UAS relieves the Offeror from providing any additional information for this sub-factor, apart from a statement that the Offeror will utilize the Government UAS."

If a vendor is planning to propose using the Government UAS, the stated relief from providing additional information in the proposal is clear for L24.4.3 Element 1.2.3: Architecture Design and L24.4.4 Element 1.2.4: Security Design, which per the descriptions are strictly for the NGLD-M

UAS.

However, L24.4.1 Element 1.2.1: Interface Description and L24.4.2 Element 1.2.2: Internal Product Management and Maintenance relate to hardware and other logical interfaces that are part of the overall system architecture and not specific to only the Government UAS. As a result, it is not clear if these elements will be evaluated only if a vendor is proposing their own UAS development.

With respect to the UAS (Vendor developed or Government), can the Government please clarify under which circumstances Elements 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 will be evaluated ?

As stated in paragraph L24.4 "Use of the Government UAS relieves the Offeror from providing any additional information for this sub-factor, apart from a statement the Offeror will Utilize the Government UAS." Therefore, the Offeror does not need to provide any additional inform for elements 1.2.1 and

1.2.2 if the Offeror proposes to use the Government UAS.

M1.1.4 Evaluation of Options states The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the base", however M2.2. Cost factor does not mention the FRP options and instead states, "For FFP efforts (Management SOW, Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP)) Price will be evaluated .." -and-

"The offerors cost proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the total cost/price proposed for basic requirements (basic award) to include the Program Management SOW and Engineering Development PWS (referred to as initial Task Order for this section), Travel, Materials, ODC, and LRIP."

Can the Government please clarify they intend that FRP options are included in the evaluations for both M1.1.4 and M2.2 ?

The Government will update the RFP solicitation to included production in the referenced section for Total Evaluated Cost/Price.

Q# Question Response

Can the Government clarify what will be required to demonstrate reasonableness and completeness on the CLINs with Plug Numbers (Material, ODC, Travel)?

The Offeror is advised to follow the RFP instructions.

Can the Government clarify what will be required to demonstrate price reasonableness on the FFP CLINs (Program Management, LRIP, FRP)?

The Offeror is advised to follow the RFP instructions.

3 Does DOD Safe require PKI credentials to submit proposals to the solicitation?

No, the Government advises the Offeror to review Section L.21 of the solicitation.

Reference Volume IV Past Performance, L26. Are we to simply follow the outline of the Past Performance Questionnaire and other requirements within Sec L.26. Do we need to complete the questionnaire attachment and submit with our response? Discussion: Per L26. Volume IV Past Performance, L26.1 General, "Each Offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Section J, Past and Present Performance Information. Offerors are advised that the Government will use data provided by each Offeror in this volume and may use data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance."

The Government advises the Offeror to follow the instructions in the solicitation.

Reference Volume VI Contract Documentation L28. Can govt clarify what is being requested for submission? Are we to copy and include each section within our proposal response? Even those that don't require a response? SF33 and Sections B, F, I, K allow for response. Discussion: "The purpose of this volume is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. The Offeror's proposal must include a signed copy of the solicitation and completion of Sections A through K of the Standard Form 33 (SF33)." The following sub sections under L28 then list Section A-K of the contract. Based on what the Army expects us to price because the provided Pricing Template Spreadsheet, there are some disconnects when compared to the model contract/solicitation (W15P7T-21-R-0001_v12_16+Nov+2020):

The Government advises the Offeror to follow the instructions in the solicitation.

Can Govt clarify the disconnects as listed below:

The Instructions tab of the Pricing Template Spreadsheet directs usonly to propose cells which are highlighted in Green, but they aren't consistent with each other

The CLIN Summary, Prog. Mgmt., LRIP, and Production tabs are all highlightedGREEN

The CLIN Summary tab only has the Base and Dev. Options 1 and 2cels (columns D, E & F) in Green, but not LRIP or any of the eight (8) Production years (columns G through O)

The Prog. Mgmt tab only requires pricing for the Base Period and Dev. Options 1 and 2. LRIP and the eight (8) Production years are not identified

The LRIP tab has the FFP-Unit Price section inGREEN, even though they aren't green in the CLIN Summary Tab

The Production tab has the FFP-Unit Price sections for all eight (8) production years inGREEN even though they are not green in the CLIN Summary Tab

Can Govt clarify the program period of performance and how it relates to the contract. The documents outline a 10 year POP that aligns to base, and three options for conyracts, but that does not map to the discussion of an 8 year production period that is also referenced. If the 3 year base contract does not include production, then the remaining contract options laid out (1 x 5 year and 2 x 1 year) do not not map to either 10 year program or 8 year production.

The Offeror is at liberty to propose their own development and production timeline that falls within the 10 year period of performance.

The Government advises the Offeror to follow the instructions in the solicitation. In the cases where cells are not green they are pulling the data from a different cell in the template which is green.