Question_Set__2_PPON_QAs.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Lower Tier Air and Missle Defense Sensor (LTAMDS) Prototype Project Opportunity Notice (PPON)
- Solicitation number
- W15QKN-19-Z-0501
About this file
This is a solicitation for proposals in response to a Prototype Project Opportunity Notice for the Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor program. The U.S. Army is seeking proposals to build, test and deliver six production representative units of the LTAMDS under an Other Transaction Authority agreement. The period of performance is three years from September 2019 to September 2022. Upon successful completion of the prototype, the Army may award a follow-on production contract for an additional quantity of up to 16 LTAMDS units without further competition. Proposals must include classified annexes and additional artifacts and will be evaluated based on best value to the Government. The selected offeror will receive a firm-fixed-price award for the prototype effort. Access to classified data and possession of a facility security clearance will be required to perform the work.
Question Set #2
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| LTAMDS_PPON_QUESTIONS_SET_4.docx | DOCX document | |
| PPON_W15QKN-19-Z-0501_Amendment_0001.docx | DOCX document | |
| LTAMDS_PPON_Question_Set_3.pdf | ||
| SLA_2019-06-05_V2.docx | DOCX document | |
| Enclosure_D_Sample.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| LTAMDS_PPON_QUESTIONS_SET_1.docx | DOCX document | |
| LTAMDS_PPON__14_May_2019_Final_PAO.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
All Questions
| LTAMDS PROTOTYPE PROJECT OPPORTUNITY NOTICE (PPON) | ||||
| W15QKN-19-Z-0501 QUESTION SET 2 | ||||
| Item | Document | Location (section/page) | Question | USG ANSWER |
| 34 | PPON Section 3.6.1 and Attachment 7 (VCRM) | Rows in Attachment 7 do not align with the P-Spec dated 29 November 2018. Recommend that the contractor is able to update rows in table to align with P-Spec. Test events listed in the columns of Attachment 7 also do not align with the SOW, suggest contractor is able to update columns to align with SOW. Question: Please confirm Contractors may update Attachment 7 rows and columns to align with the final PSpec and SOW released under this solicitation. | Attachment 7 rows may be updated by Offeror's to better align with the P-Spec. | |
| 35 | Attachment 5 (Generation Breakdown Listing) | The mapping of the iPBL to P-Spec requirements is significant due to a number of iPBL elements map to multiple P-Spec items. Doing the mapping on a separate tab would be more efficient and more readily reviewable. Question: Please confirm mapping of the iPBL to P-Spec Requirements may be done on a separate tab. If not, please confirm additional columns may be added to the main tab to accomplish this mapping. | Columns may be added to the Offeror's iPBL in order to complete the iPBL to P-Spec to Capability mapping. | |
| 36 | LTAMDS Performance Specification | At the Sense-Off Vendor Exchange meeting on 12 February 2019 a question was raised WRT the P-Spec dated 29 November 2018. This version includes a new long range TBM Firm Track Range (FTR) requirement in the high, medium, and low priority TBM sectors (paragraph 3.3.1.3, Table 5) and the RCS parameters added 12 dB relative to the existing short range FTR requirement for the high and medium sectors but 14 dB for the low priority sector. Thus, industry questioned if this RCS discrepancy was intentional or by mistake. At the 7 March 2019 Digital Simulations Telecon, ___ received direction that the new Long Range TBM FTR requirements were not intended to increase radar sizing, but instead to ensure longer range capability was provided for larger RCS targets. As a result the RCS for the long range TBMs should be increased 14 dB relative to the short range TBM FTR and not 12 dB as the 29 November 2018 P-Spec had listed. Additionally, the USG advised that “If this update does not occur before the upcoming digital simulation assessment period, then the Government plans to only assess the paragraph 3.3.1.3, Table 5 sizing requirement against the short range TBM FTR requirements.” The PSpec delivered with the PPON did not update this requirement. Please confirm that the previously direction of “If this update does not occur before the upcoming digital simulation assessment period, then the Government plans to only assess the paragraph 3.3.1.3, Table 5 sizing requirement against the short range TBM FTR requirements” still applies. | The CDD and P-Spec will be updated after single vendor selection based on trade-offs. For the digital simulation analysis, paragraph 3.3.1.3, Table 5 sizing requirement will only be assessed against the short range TBM FTR requirements. | |
| 37 | Enclosure D Line Item Number Structure | Line Item Number Structure in Enclosure D does not appear to align with that of the (Lin X) reference in the SOW. Please clarify the Line Item Number Structure in Enclosure D to the SOW (Lin X) reference? | Line Item Number Structure, Enclosure D has be updated to reflect LINS 1-2. | |
| 38 | PPON Section 3.4.a / .f & 3.5 | In cases where hyperlinks are required, to make the hyperlink work the files need to be on the same media. In general, the volume with supporting data to be hyperlinked is larger than a CD will permit. Please confirm DVDs may be used in lieu of CDs. | DVDs may be submitted. Blue Ray is not permitted. PPON amendment is forthcoming with this change. | |
| 39 | Attachment 13 (Model OTA), Article 8 (Computer Software and Data Rights), D (Copyright) | Para D states "...The COMPANY hereby grants to the U.S. Government a non-exclusive, irrevocable, nontransferable, royalty-free, fully paid-up license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies to the public, and perform publicly and display publicly, for governmental purposes, any copyrighted materials developed under this Agreement to which it owns the copyright, and to authorize others to do so...". Because para. E requires Article VIII to be included in all subcontracts or lower tier agreements, this may cause confusion, as the rights purported to be granted by VIII.D. may be different than those in DFARS 252.227-7013, 7014 & 7015. Recommend removal of the third sentence of paragraph D, as it not needed because of DFARS 7013, 7014, 7015 & SLA. Please confirm the 3rd sentence in Paragraph D is deleted. If this paragraph D sentence remains, please address how the SLA and commercial software licensing (including that for free and open source software) are compatible with the license grant in paragraph D. | Volume 6 seeks comments against the Model OTA. | |
| 40 | Attachment 13 (Model OTA) Article 9 (Inventions and Patent Rights), A (Incorporated Clauses) | DoD policy at FAR 27.201-2(c)(1) states that the use of the Patent Indemnity clause is for solicitations and contracts that may result in the delivery of commercial items. Para. (2) provides that Alt I or II of the clause if the contract also requires delivery of items that are not commercial items or limiting the applicability of the clause is consistent with commercial practice. Recommend deletion of clause or use of Alt II to limit to commercial items that include patent indemnities in their standard commercial terms. Please confirm this clause is deleted, or Alt II may be used if not deleted. | Volume 6 seeks comments against the Model OTA. | |
| 41 | PPON §3.6.1 | As stated in Section 3.6.1 Subfactor 1 Current (UMR) Capability, the Offeror shall submit a sense-off demonstration report and digital simulation report in accordance with the instructions to Offerors. Please confirm these reports are appendices and therefore do not count against the page limitations. | Plans and reports should be submitted as a section of the 50 page Capability volume. | |
| 42 | PPON §2 | How does the government intend to use Enclosure E? | Enclosure E, Contractor Cost and Software Data Reporting Plan, is the DCARC approved CSDR plan for LTAMDS. The WBS is based on MIL-STD-881 requirements. | |
| 43 | TEMP | General | There multiple references to "test performance vs. Patriot" in the TEMP. Should this be updated to test performance versus testing against the P-spec and/or CDD requirements instead of the Patriot for more appropriate TEMP expectations? | As stated in TEMP paragraph 1.5, "(U) 1.5 TEMP for LTAMDS Program UMR Update |
(U) The Army will update this TEMP for LTAMDS Program UMR in compliance with AR 73-1. This document describes a plan to test and evaluate the LTAMDS at the time of publication. As the program develops and a single vendor and hardware design are established, this plan will necessarily adapt to evaluate the selected hardware. Once a single vendor and design have been established, the Developmental Evaluation Framework (DEF) will, most likely, be updated in the TEMP. Single vendor selection is planned for 4QFY19 as shown in Figure 1-2 LTAMDS Program Schedule." Updates will be made after single vendor selection.
| 44 | SOW | Figure 2.1 page 2 | The text cites sense off prototype as PRU1, and text also cites PRU 2-7 as the 6 systems to be delivered. Please confirm that sense off prototype is not to be delivered and that the numbering convention for the 6 delivered systems begins with number 2. | PRU1 is not to be delivered to the USG. The 6 prototype PRUs begin with number 2. | |
| 45 | SOW | 4.8.1.1.1 | The SOW does not include the latest electronic technical publication standard, S1000D, for IETM development. Should this be incorporated into the SOW? | Volume 6 seeks comments against the Model OTA. | |
| 46 | SOW | 4.2.1.1 | This section requires delivery of Cost and Hour Report CDRL (A001). The contract will be FFP therefore cost reporting data is not relevant and will add cost. Recommend this CDRL be deleted. | DCARC and DASA-CE want CSDR data for this program. | |
| 47 | SOW | 4.2.1.5 | This section requires delivery of CBDR CDRLs (A008). The contract will be FFP therefore cost reporting data is not relevant and will add cost. Recommend this CDRL be deleted. | DCARC and DASA-CE want CBDR/CSDR data for this program. | |
| 48 | PPON and Attachment 13 | PPON 3.5 | Section 3.5 states "Volume 6: Model OTA (Attachment 13) to be filled out with comments from the Offeror." Is the Government's expectation that only the highlighted sections are to be filled out by the offeror or does the offeror have an opportunity to provide comments to other sections such as the data rights assertion tables in Article VIII and the Acceptance/Inspection criteria of Section E? | Volume 6 seeks comments against the Model OTA. | |
| 49 | PPON | 4.6 | If the offeror agrees to provide unlimited rights to non-commercial data and non-commercial software, will the offeror receive maximum credit for evaluation of Factor 5? | In order to recieve maximum credit for evaluation of Factor 5 the Offeror's proposed terms and conditions for granting rights to the Data requires a highly favorable rating based on the affordability, minimum quantity to be procured, period of time, and/or other conditions required for the granting of at least LTAMDS Purpose Rights. In order to recieve a good rating for Factor 5 the Offeror's proposed terms and conditions for granting rights to the Data is highly favorable to the Government. The proposed SLA clearly outlines all the terms, conditions, and associated costs. | |
| 50 | PPON | 3.4 | 180 day validity extends well beyond the expected award date. Will the Government consider a date that aligns more closely with the award timeline in SEP 2019? | The Government considered the request. The 180 day validity date remains. | |
| 51 | PPON | 3.5 | The PPON states the Volume 4 (Factor 4 Price) must be submitted on a standalone disk. Should the Volume 4 (Factor 4 Price) also be included in the combined hard copy volumes and combined CD copy volumes? | Yes | |
| 52 | PPON | Sect 3.5, | |||
| page 8 | The proposal submittal instructions state that Volume 4 (Factor 4 Price) shall be submitted on a standalone disk. RFP section 3.8.2 states that the IMS shall include resource loading of direct costs. This will result in cost data being provided outside of the stand alone disk for Volume 4. Can the Government please confirm that resource loading is required in the IMS? And if so, how will cost information be kept seperate from the other technical (non-price) information in this Volume? | Resource loading is required in the IMS. Schedule and Price are evaluated seperately. Individuals will be authorized access only to those portions of the proposal data and discussions that are necessary to enable them to perform the respective duties. | |||
| 53 | PPON | 3.8.1.2 | PPON paragraph 3.8.1.2 states that Sense-off data and reports will be provided to participants “within 10 days after the final participant’s demonstration is complete.” However, the data generated from the Sense-off is available to each vendor as the event occurs. How will the USG ensure all offerors will have the same amount of time to consider and address such data and reports in their respective proposal submissions? | Each Offeror will have the same amount of time to review the USG provided sense-off and digitial simulation analysis reports prior to proposal submittal. All sense-off participants will receive the USG reports at the same time. | |
| 54 | PPON | 3.8.2 | Can the Offeror provide resource loading in native excel formats as part of the Cost/Price Volume, instead of a Resource loaded schedule, with a Crosswalk between the two volumes? The resource loaded schedule will be inconsistent with the pricing values in the Cost/Price Volume, as the IMS will omit resources for level of effort, duplicate activities, regular recurring deliveries, regular recurring meetings and IMP Accomplishments, where the pricing volume will include these. | No, Price and Schedule are evaluated seperately. | |
| 55 | PPON | 3.8.2 | Since this contract is FFP requiring resource loading of direct costs to the IMS is not relevant and will require additional cost. Recommend removing this requirement in its entirety or alternatively recommend updating to resource loading of total costs instead of direct costs. This will lessen the burden and turn-around time for offeror's subcontractors supporting the cost volume. | Resource loading is required in the IMS. | |
| 56 | PPON | 3.9 | Request the Government provide an Excel template for the Price Volume or can the Government provide an expectation on how the Excel 2013 format should be provided? | A file template is provided and will be incorporated in next PPON amendment. | |
| 57 | PPON | 3.1 | The PPON states that "Any royalty costs for third party patents shall be included in the SLA. The price/costs of the SLA will not be included in the TEP calculation in Factor 4, but will be evaluated as part of the Factor 5 evaluation ". Under Section 4.6, the RFP states that "The SLA (Attachment 12) will be evaluated based on affordability." Can the Government clarify if SLA costs must be included or excluded from the Price Volume? | Excluded | |
| 58 | PPON | Enclosure D | Adding in the Contractor Cost and Software Data Reporting Plan requirement will create an added cost burden to the contractor, as well as their subcontractors on a FFP contract. Will the Government consider removing this requirement for cost savings? | DCARC and DASA-CE want CSDR data for this program. | |
| 59 | PPON | 4.5 | The PPON states that "The TEP will be determined by summing all line items numbers (enclosure D, CLINs 1-2) included in the Offerors proposal," however, under Section 3.9 the RFP states that "All line item numbers will be summed for a Total Evaluated Price (TEP)." Does the TEP include all seven CLINs from Enclosure D or only CLINs 1 & 2? | The TEP consists of Line Items 1-2. Enclosure D, Line Item Number Structure, provided with the PPON is incorrect. There are only 2 Line Items. PPON, Enclosure D, Line Number Structure has been corrected and provided as an attachment to this document. Enclosure D will be updated in an amendment to the PPON. | |
| 60 | PPON | 4.5 Factor 4 - Price page 26 | Enclosure D CLIN Structure cites seven descriptions of CLIN Structures. The parenthetical notes include with the section numbers in the SOW do not include all seven Line Item Numbers and do not appear to align with the description of the Line Item Number Structure. Can the Government Please confirm or edit the attached SOW to CLIN mapping file "SOW CLIN map.xlsx." | Line Item Number Structure, Enclosure D has be updated to reflect LINS 1-2. | |
| 61 | PPON | 4.6 | The Government provides a list of four items that the they intend to use the SLA. Does the Government intend to potentially use the SLA to compete the quantity 16 production follow-on or will that be sole source to the UMR quantity 6 contractor? | Acquisition strategy/contracting plan for efforts beyond the 6 prototypes has not been approved. | |
| 62 | PPON | 1.3.2 | The PPON states the competitive OTA acquisition will result in an award to a single offeror. Will the Government consider awarding OTA contracts to multiple offerors? | Single Award is contemplated. | |
| 63 | PPON | General | If this requirement is sufficiently urgent enough to justify an OTA as a UMR, why is Schedule only the third most important factor and Past Performance more important than Schedule? | The Warfighter deserves the most capability built by a responsible vendor to be fielded as quickly as possible. | |
| 64 | PPON | 5 | With respect to the utilization of a Cost Share or Non-Traditional Defense Contractor (NDC) approach, will the USG apply any weighting or preferential treatment to one approach over the other? | No | |
| 65 | PPON | 4.5 | When the USG evaluates a offeror utilizing a 1/3 cost share, will the offer be evaluated at a total program price (i.e. 1/3 contractor cost share plus 2/3 USG cost share) or only at the total price to the Government (i.e. 2/3 USG cost share)? | The TEP will not be assessed against the cost share. All Offerors shall provide a completed Enclosure D, Line Item Number Structure in Excel 2013 Format. All pricing shall be fixed amounts and all Line Item Numbers will be summed to a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The cost share is not included in the TEP. The 1/3 cost share shall be negotiated once the offeror is selected for award and may include costs allowable in Section 5 – Condition of Award (3). The 1/3 cost share doesn’t get calculated on Enclosure D spread sheet. | |
| 66 | PPON | Enclosure E | The sample contractor cost and software data reporting plan contains a WBS structure that is not applicable for all proposed solutions. Please confirm that this is a sample to indicate the expected level of reporting and that a bidder may propose a WBS structure that is applicable to their offer. | Enclosure E, Contractor Cost and Software Data Reporting Plan, is the DCARC approved CSDR plan for LTAMDS. The WBS is based on MIL-STD-881 requirements. | |
| 67 | PPON | 3.6, 4.2, 4.2.1, 4.2.2 | Item 1 "Prerequisite requirements" is not defined. Please provide a definition and/or reference for the set of "Prerequisite requirements." | Attachment 6 TCM Priorities further defined Item 1. | |
| 68 | PPON | 3.6, 4.2, 4.2.1, 4.2.2 | Item 7 "Kill Assessment" is no longer a requirement in the P-Spec. Prior revisions of the P-Pspec had a requirement ("Shall") to perform kill-assessment. This requirement was removed in latest P-Spec; however, references to Kill Assessment still exist in P-Spec which indirectly imply that the LTAMDS will perform Kill Assessment. Please provide a definition and/or reference for the specific capability that is required of "Kill Assessment" in order for the vendor to adequately inform the government on the proposed capability against which the offering will be evaluated. | The IAMD system will perform the kill assessment based on data provided by LTAMDS per IAMD ICD (MIS-DTL-56502 Rev H). | |
| 69 | PPON | 4.1.3 | Table states that ratings will be assessed with respect to "benefits" and "shortcomings." Subsequent paragraphs define "benefits" and "shortcomings" with respect to "...desired capabilities or expectations." Section 4.2 describes two capabilities sub-factors: "Current" and "Future." Section | ||
| 4.2 further states "Future capability is defined as the system post OTA and is the ability of the system to evolve through a P3I approach to meet all LTAMDS P-Spec requirements. " This statement regarding "Future" capability implies there is an expectation or allowance for a "Current" capability to have "shortcomings" relative to the P-Spec. Subsequent paragraphs state that the offer will be assessed against P-Spec using VCRM attachment 7; VCRM attachment 7 does not reflect the latest P- Spec provided to vendor. Please confirm whether or not there will be distinct ratings for "Current" and "Future" capabilities and the P-Spec revision and extent to which the P-Spec will be used as the measuring-stick for "...desired capabilities or expectations" with specific cross referencing of the 11 Capabilities to the P-Spec. Further, given the prioritization of "Capability" above all other evaluation factors, please specify the relative weighting of "Current" vs "Future" capabilities in the evaluation criteria. As currently documented, it is ambiguous as to what specifically the offer will be evaluated with respect to highest weighted factor: "Capability". | Attachment 7 rows may be updated by Offeror's to better align with the P-Spec. Current capability is more important than Future capability. | ||||
| 70 | PPON | 4.1.3 | Table states that ratings will be assessed accounting for "… risk of unsuccessful Agreement performance …" Please clarify what is meant by "… risk of unsuccessful Agreement performance …" | The risk of an Offeror's proposed solution and performance will not meet desired capabilities or expectations. | |
| 71 | PPON | 3.8.2.3 | Are Subcontractor schedules for COTS items included in this requirement for resource loaded IMS? | Yes | |
| 72 | PPON | General | No clarity on how much benefit is given to meet "objective" requirements vs "threshold". For example if a solution could meet objective but it caused a threshold requirement is not met does it weigh the same? How will they be evaluated? | Proposals are evaluated in accordance with PPON section 4. | |
| 73 | PPON | 4.1.2 | The PPON states, "Offerors will be cautioned, however, that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced Offeror or the Offeror with the highest rating." Does the "Offeror with the highest rating" refer only to Factor 4 Price or does this refer to the highest total rating of all the combined Evaluation Factors? | Highest rating refers to combinations of all Evaluation Factors. | |
| 74 | PPON | 3.6 Para 3 | The paragraph states "Additionally, Offerors shall describe, justify, and substantiate how the proposed design meets requirements focusing on the following areas in descending order of importance: 1. Prerequisite Requirements, 2. TBM Defense, 3. ASM/ARM Defense, 4. Non-TBM Defense, 5. Full Sector Self Defense, 6. Electronic Protection, 7. Kill Assessment, 8. Operations and Sustainment, 9. Training, 10. Emplacement Accuracy, and 11. Mass Attack (Attachment 6). " The capabilities listed are very broad and it is difficult to associate some to specific P-Spec requirements without introducing interpretations. How will the USG evaluate this section without specifically linking the User Prioritized Capabilities list back to P-Spec requirements to fully define each priority and remove possibility of different interpretations? | Offerors are required to complete the iPBL to P-Spec to Capability mapping based on the proposed design. | |
| 75 | PPON | 3.6.1.1 | "Substantiating data shall be complete, specific, and relevant only to the specific performance levels proposed to be achieved by the Offeror for each requirement." As it applies to Attachment 8 - Performance Requirement, please provide an example/situation of when a contractor will use this document. | The Attachment 8 - Performance Requirement Worksheet can be filled out and utilized as a hyperlinked substantiating data document. In the requirement ID field the P-Spec paragraph reference shall be utilized. | |
| 76 | PPON | 3.6.2 | "The Offeror shall complete the Verification Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 7)." What is the planning horizon (time period) that the offeror must consider to address "Future Capability" when utilizing Attachment 7? | Current (UMR) capability means the current design as defined in the iPBL/GBL and is described as the capability proposed to be delivered, developed and completed during the course of OTA. Future capability is defined as the system post OTA and is the ability of the system to evolve through a P3I approach to meet all LTAMDS P-Spec requirements. | |
| 77 | PPON | 4.1 | The Proposal Submission Instructions describes how substantiating data will be utilized to evaluate the offering. For Current Capability requirements (Contractor Performance Specification) that are being offered that cannot be correlated to data - limitations at Sense-Off, etc. - can the USG specifically describe the tools and processes it will use to evaluate these requirements? What models will be used? Have these models been validated and verified? | The USG will evaluate the proposal based on PPON section 4. | |
| 78 | PPON | 4.1 | For evaluation of Future Capability, the instructions state substantiating data, including from the Sense-Off, will be used to evaluate offerings. Since this is capability envisioned for the future, what are the USG expectations of what would be involved at the Sense-Off to collect "data" on this capability? If it is reasonable to assume limited "data" would be collected, can the USG specifically describe the tools and processes it will use to evaluate these future requirements? What models will be used? Have these models been validated and verified? | The USG will evaluate the proposal based on PPON section 4. | |
| 79 | PPON | 3.8.1.2 | "Digital Simulation data, and any associated reports will be provided to participants by the LTAMDS Sense-Off Analysis Team within 10 days after the final participant’s demonstration is complete." Can the Government clarify what determines when the sense off is complete? | When the last vendor leaves WSMR. | |
| 80 | PPON | 3.6.1 | Paragraph refers to a Contractor's Performance Specification. The PPON is to address the LTAMDS Performance Specification. Is the Offeror expected to provide a Contractor's Performance Specification as part of the proposal? | Yes, the Offeror should provide a Functional Baseline (FBL) or Contractor Performance Specification as part of its substantiating data that reflects the proposed capability for the pending OTA. | |
| 81 | PPON | 3.6.1 | Paragraph states to fill in Attachment 5 for iPBL/GBL data tailored from the LTAMDS P-Spec. It then proceeds to talk about annotated contractor's performance specification. Is the Attachment 5 implied to be the contractor's performance specification? | No, the iPBL defines the material solution that meets the Offeror's proposed current capability P-spec. The FBL/Contractor Performance Specification is submitted as part of the substantiating data and will be the baseline for the pending OTA. | |
| 82 | PPON | Section 2 | The PPON provide Contractor Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Plan template. Seeing that this contract is a FFP contract why would it be necessary to report out the contractor's cost data? | DCARC and DASA-CE want CSDR data for this program. | |
| 83 | PPON | Section 2 | Enclosure D - Line item number structure, lists line 2 as Program Support. However in the SOW, LIN 2 appears to be associated with the DEF paragraphs. Which is the correct association? | DEF activities should be bid as LIN 2 | |
| 84 | PPON | Section 2 | Enclosure D - Line item number structure, lists line 2 as Program Support. If this association is correct, what SOW Scope paragraphs should be associated with the Program Support? | Line Item Number Structure, Enclosure D has be updated to reflect LINS 1-2. | |
| 85 | PPON | Section 2 | Enclosure D - Line item number structure, lists line 3 as DT/EUT Support. However in the SOW, LIN 3 does not show up but the section 4.5.3, Developmental Testing and section 4.5.4 Operational Testing and EUT are both associated with LIN 1. Which is the correct association? | Line Item Number Structure, Enclosure D has be updated to reflect LINS 1-2. | |
| 86 | PPON | Section 2 | Enclosure D - Line item number structure, lists line 4 as Paperwork for DT/EUT& UMR. However in the SOW, LIN 4 does not show up but the section 4.5.3, Developmental Testing and section 4.5.4 Operational Testing and EUT are both associated with LIN 1. Which is the correct association? | Line Item Number Structure, Enclosure D has be updated to reflect LINS 1-2. | |
| 87 | PPON | Section 2 | Enclosure D - Line item number structure, lists line 5 as Training Material. However in the SOW, LIN 5 is attached to the paragraph 4.7.4 - Packaging, Handling, Storage, and Transportation. Which is the correct association? | Line Item Number Structure, Enclosure D has be updated to reflect LINS 1-2. | |
| 88 | PPON | Section 2 | Enclosure D - Line item number structure, lists line 6 as CLS. However in the SOW, paragraph 4.8 - Contractor Logistics Support is associated with LIN 1. Which is the correct association? | Line Item Number Structure, Enclosure D has be updated to reflect LINS 1-2. | |
| 89 | PPON | Section 2 | Enclosure D - Line item number structure, lists line 7 as DEF. However in the SOW, paragraph 4.3.8.4.2.2 Government Furnished Information (GFI) to Support DEF is associated with LIN 2. Which is the correct association? | Line Item Number Structure, Enclosure D has be updated to reflect LINS 1-2. | |
| 90 | PPON | 3.4 f. | Unclassified physical proposals on CDs and printed copies (in binders) as well as Unclassified proposal artifacts shall only be delivered to the address below. Is the offeror to provide hardcopy of the supporting data that is to be supplied as part of the proposal, or only provide that supporting data on CD? | Supporting data should be provided on CD/DVD. | |
| 91 | PPON | 3.7 | Subparagraphs 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 are misnumbered - should be 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 | These subsections should be numbered 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 and will be updated in the PPON amendment. | |
| 92 | PPON | 3.7 (3.3.2) | The RFP requests a list of "all recent Government contracts…" Is it the intent to get a list of "all" contracts or should this be radar specific contracts, or immediate business area contracts, etc. For the vendors associated with the UMR proposal, this list will be large and take significant amount of time to compile in the format required for the proposal. Recommend radar specific contracts or business area contracts. | This will be changed to "...all recent and relevant Government contracts…" in a forthcoming PPON amendment. | |
| 93 | PPON | 3.8.1.6 | Design Maturity states the offeror fill out self assessment Attachment 10 but then also notes in this paragraph the offeror shall provide a description of the proposed solution. How is this different than the description of the current capability as defined in volume 1 Factor 1, Sub-factor 1 Current Capability? | Design Maturity and Current Capability are two separate sub-factors. | |
| 94 | PPON | Section 3.8.2, |
3.8.2.1d, 3.8.2.3, "sub-factor 2 IMS," pp 15, 16; with reference to Section 5 "Conductions for Award," pg 27 Request flexibility to develop an LTAMDS OTA proposal IMS IAW corporate practice to provide a sufficiently detailed plan that is suitable for evaluation for IMS construction integrity and execution realism, and fully traceable (cross walk) to discrete activity associated scope and cost elements.
1) Recognizes the need to carefully resolve reporting of potentially sensitive direct cost reporting details of a nontraditional defense contractor, ____, a condition allowed under Section 5, "Conditions for Award."
2) Recognizes that PPON 3.8.2 does not differentiate for commodity suppliers that under PPON
3.8.2.3 could have thresholds as low as 10% of the award value.
| 3) Recognizes that Firm Fixed Price programs do not generally provide resource loaded IMS deliveries. However, ____ would make available for review a baselined, resource loaded schedule at the Fast Start Orientation Meeting to reflect the authorized budget, finalized risk management plans, metrics for management purposes, and justification for long-lead funding requirements, with issues 1) and 2) above resolved. | Section 3.8.2 remains unchanged. | ||||
| 95 | PPON | 3.8.2.3 | The RFP paragraph lists the Subcontractor threshold as 10%. This is an extremely low threshold and would result in common/commercial parts as "subcontracts". Recommend the government raise the threshold to at least 25%. | Subcontractor schedules shall be included for first and second tier suppliers whose contract value exceeds 10% of the total LTAMDS award value. | |
| 96 | PPON | Section 3.8.2.5, pg 17 | Please confirm whether the cumulative probability "S" curve determined by Schedule Risk Assessment (SRA) satisfies the requirement for a chart of probability of success vs program duration in months in 5% increments from 5% to 90%. As the S curve is continuous, it provides more detail than the 5% increments required. | Proposal should include requirements in 3.8.2.5. "S" curve and chart of probability of success. | |
| 97 | PPON | 3.6, Paragraph 3 | The PPON states "The description shall include, at a minimum, a mapping of how the Offeror’s solution meets or will meet all the LTAMDS P-Spec requirements. The mapping shall be completed in iPBL/GBL (Attachment 5)." The format of the iPBL table provided in Attachment 5 does not provide a means of mapping how the solution meets the P-Spec. It appears to be some sort of BOM-like parts list which is not germane to describing how the solution meets the P-Spec. As written, it is not possible to be compliant to this statement in the PPON. Please clarify. | Columns may be added to the Offeror's iPBL in order to complete the iPBL to P-Spec to Capability mapping. | |
| 98 | PPON | 3.6, Paragraph 3 | The PPON states "Additionally, Offerors shall describe, justify, and substantiate how the proposed design meets requirements focusing on the following areas in descending order of importance: 1. Prerequisite Requirements, 2. TBM Defense, 3. ASM/ARM Defense, 4. Non-TBM Defense, 5. Full Sector Self Defense, 6. Electronic Protection, 7. Kill Assessment, 8. Operations and Sustainment, 9. Training, 10. Emplacement Accuracy, and 11. Mass Attack (Attachment 6). " It is not clear how the 11 areas listed are related to requirements defined in the P-Spec; some of the areas listed do not appear anywhere in the P-spec; others appear scattered throughout the P-Spec, and other have no relevant requirements at all. As written, it is not possible to be compliant to this statement in the PPON. Please clarify by providing the specific P-Spec paragraphs that are associated with each of these 11 areas, so that all contractors can be evaluated accurately. | Columns may be added to the Offeror's iPBL in order to complete the iPBL to P-Spec to Capability mapping. Offerors are to required to complete the iPBL to P-Spec to Capability mapping based on the proposed design. | |
| 99 | PPON | 3.6, Paragraph 3 | The PPON states "Collectively, these requirements are more important than other LTAMDS P-Spec requirements." The intention of this statement is not clear. Is the intention that the offerors are not required to address the "other" requirements? If so, this seems inconsistent with the subsequent PPON requirement to complete Attachment 7, which address ALL of the P-Spec requirements. Please clarify whether and how the offerors should describe, justify, and substantiate how the proposed design meets requirements the "other" requirements. | Offerors are required to address how the proposed solution meets all p-spec requirements. | |
| 100 | PPON | 3.6.1, Paragraph 1 | The PPON states "The Offeror shall propose the iPBL/GBL, tailored from the LTAMDS P-Spec, by providing a Generation Breakdown Listing to the lowest level of indenture. " Since the iPBL is a parts list, it is not possible to "tailor" it to the P-Spec. A mapping from the iPBL to the P-Spec (17th column listed in Attachment 5) requires a many-to-many type of mapping, which attachment 5 does not permit in its current format. As written, it is not possible to be compliant to this statement in the PPON. Please clarify. | Columns may be added to the Offeror's iPBL in order to complete the iPBL to P-Spec to Capability mapping. | |
| 101 | PPON | 3.6.1, Paragraph 1 | The PPON states "The iPBL/GBL shall be provided in a searchable Microsoft Office compatible format and shall include all information requested in Attachment 5." The table provided in attachment includes numerous column headings whose definition is not provided or which used acronyms that are not defined (see columns 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 18). As written, it is not possible to be compliant to this statement in the PPON. Please clarify. | Column 3 - Document Number on the document XX, 1, etc.; Column 4 - Estimated Completion Date; Column 7 - Document Type ref: ASME Y14.24, i.e. schematic diagram; Column 9 - Design Control Authority resides with USG; Column 10 - Design Control Authority reside with Lower Tier Project Office; Column 11 - Federal Logistics Information System (has the USG assigned an National Stock Number); Column 18 - Material Solution mapped to TCM Capability Priority | |
| 102 | PPON | 3.6.1, Paragraph 1 | The PPON states "For each LTAMDS P-Spec requirement, the Contractor’s Performance Specification shall be annotated to indicate how the requirement is currently satisfied." However, there is no requirement in this PPON to actually submit a Contractor's Performance Specification, and there is no format defined or related attachment for the contractor to provide this document. As written, it is not possible to be compliant to this statement in the PPON. Please clarify. | The iPBL defines the material solution that meets the Offeror's proposed current capability P-spec. The FBL/Contractor Performance Specification is submitted as part of the substantiating data and will be the baseline for the pending OTA. | |
| 103 | PPON | 3.6.1, Paragraph 1 | The PPON states "For each LTAMDS P-Spec requirement, the Contractor’s Performance Specification shall be annotated to indicate how the requirement is currently satisfied. The Offeror shall not modify any language in the LTAMDS P Spec." The first sentence implies that the contractor is required to define their version of the P-Spec, presumably that version associated with the "current capability". However, the second sentence completely contradicts the first sentence. If the contractor is supposed to provide their version of the P-Spec, but it cannot be modified from the original P-Spec, then why is it necessary for the contractor to submit a P-Spec, if it is the same as the original P-Spec? Please clarify. | If the Offeror intends to use the USG LTAMDS P-Spec as the Offeror's FBL/Contractor Specification then the proposal should be annotated as such. If proposed capability is less than USG LTAMDS P-Spec then Offeror shall provide an FBL/Contractor Specification. | |
| 104 | PPON | 3.6.1, Paragraph 1 | The PPON states "The Contractor Performance Specification iPBL/GBL shall be incorporated into the LTAMDS OTA. " The PPON does not define what a "Contractor Performance Specification iPBL/GBL" is. Does this imply the contractor is to submit two iPBLs (the original requested earlier in this section, and Contractor Performance Specification version requested here)? what is the difference between the two versions? As written, it is not possible to be compliant to this statement in the PPON. Please clarify. | The iPBL defines the material solution that meets the Offeror's proposed current capability P-spec. The FBL/Contractor Performance Specification is submitted as part of the substantiating data and will be the baseline for the OTA. | |
| 105 | PPON | 3.6.1, Paragraph 1 | The PPON states "The Contractor Performance Specification iPBL/GBL shall be incorporated into the LTAMDS OTA. " The PPON does not define what a "Contractor Performance Specification iPBL/GBL" is. It appears to be self contradictory in that the Contractors Performance Specification would be in the form of a specification, but the iPBL is in the form of a parts list (which in part requests linkage to a P-Spec). As written, it is not possible to be compliant to this statement in the PPON. Please clarify. | The Contractor Performance Specification/FBL and iPBL/GBL shall be incorporated into the LTAMDS OTA. | |
| 106 | PPON | 3.6.1, Paragraph 2 | The PPON states "The Offeror shall complete the Verification Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 7). " Attachment 7 is a table that includes several columns (Risk to UMR, Start Date, Finish Date, P3I, 1- | ||
| N) without instructions on how to define the values in these columns. Please clarify. | For each requirement, the Offeror is required to input a mark when the proposed design/system meets or will meet the verification event. | ||||
| 107 | PPON | 3.6.1, Paragraph 2 | The PPON states "The Offeror shall complete the Verification Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 7). " Attachment 7 is a table that uses the P-Spec sections as the independent variable. However, the P- Sec paragraphs listed are not consisted with the P-Spec that was provided as an attachment to this PPON. As written, it is not possible to be compliant to this statement in the PPON. Please clarify. | Attachment 7 rows may be updated by Offeror's to better align with the P-Spec. | |
| 108 | PPON | 3.6.1, Paragraph 2 | The PPON states "For each LTAMDS P-Spec requirement listed, the Offeror shall provide hyperlinked data to substantiate the performance of the proposed design using the format in Attachment 7." How / where is the contractor to provide the data that the hyperlinks point to? There is no provision to provision / instruction in the PPON on how the contractor is to provide the actual data in the hyperlink. Please clarify. | Substaniating data should be hyperlinked and provided on CD/DVD. | |
| 109 | PPON | 3.6.1, Paragraph 3 | The PPON states "This system integration approach shall be incorporated into a System Integration Plan as a portion of the LTAMDS OTA." Is the System Integration Plan require to address the entire system integration, or only that portion associated with how the proposed current LTAMDS system will be integrated with IBCS and PAC 3 family of interceptors? | Entire system integration. | |
| 110 | PPON | 3.6.1, Paragraph 3 | The PPON states "This system integration approach shall be incorporated into a System Integration Plan as a portion of the LTAMDS OTA." Is this System Integration Plan to be submitted as a separate attachment to the response to this PPON? Does that attachment have a page count limit? | The plan should be submitted as section of the 50 page Capability volume. | |
| 111 | PPON | 3.6.1, Paragraph 4 | The PPON states "The Offeror shall submit a sense-off demonstration report that explains how the demonstrated capability meets the LTAMDS P-Spec." Is this sense-off demonstration report to be submitted as a separate attachment to the response to this PPON? Does that attachment have a page count limit? | This report should be submitted as a section of the 50 page Capability volume. | |
| 112 | PPON | 3.6.1, Paragraphs 4 | |||
| and 5 | The PPON states "The Offeror shall submit a sense-off demonstration report that explains how the demonstrated capability meets the LTAMDS P-Spec." The sense-off demonstration event does not include any direct evaluation of the requirements of the P-Spec. Consequently it does not make sense to submit a sense-off report that explains how the demonstrated capability meets the LTAMDS P-Spec. | “Sense Off” test data that establishes conformance to the proposed LTAMDS design configuration represents the most credible form of substantiating data. | |||
| 113 | PPON | 3.6.1, Paragraph 5 | The PPON states "The Offeror shall submit a digital simulation report that explains how the modeled capability meets the LTAMDS P- Spec." Is this digital simulation report to be submitted as a separate attachment to the response to this PPON? Does that attachment have a page count limit? | This report should be submitted as a section of the 50 page Capability volume. | |
| 114 | PPON | 3.6.1, Paragraphs 4 | |||
| and 5 | The PPON states "The Offeror shall submit a sense-off demonstration report that explains how the demonstrated capability meets the LTAMDS P-Spec." The sense-off demonstration event does not include any direct evaluation of the requirements of the P-Spec, and the digital simulation model may or may not accurately reflect what is being offered by the response to this PPON for the "current capability". It would be much more efficient for both the contractor and the government, if the contractor were to submit a description of how they intend to be compliant to the Contractor Performance Specification, and use results from the Sense-Off and the Digital Simulation (and elsewhere) to corroborate that compliance. This approach would be consistent with the intention of Section 3.6.1.1 | The intent is for the sense-off and digital sim report is to explain how the demonstrated solution meets the P-Spec. If the demonstrated solution or modeled solution cannot meet the P-Spec then the report should annotate as such. If the proposed solution differs from the sense-off or modeled solution then reports should annotate as such. | |||
| 115 | PPON | 3.6.1.1, Paragraph 1 | The PPON states "Substantiating Data shall be in the form of Sense-Off data, validated modeling and simulation data, Government test data, third party test data, Offeror test data, manufacturers’ specification sheets, safety confirmations, material release information, analytical support, design documentation and/or rationale. " This PPON does not provide direction on the method / format for providing the substantiating data. Is there specific media required? Is there a limit to this data? | ||
| What is the format of this data? Please clarify | Substantiating data will be hyperlinked and provided on CD/DVD. | ||||
| 116 | PPON | 3.6.1.1, Paragraph 1 | The PPON states "If the substantiating data for one requirement is the same as data cited for another requirement, then reference the previously provided data in Attachment 8 (Performance Requirements Worksheet) and do not provide duplicate data". However, there is no requirement or directions in this PPON to provide the information listed in Attachment 8 | The Attachment 8 - Performance Requirement Worksheet can be filled out and utilized as a hyperlinked substantiating data document. In the requirement ID field the P-Spec paragraph reference shall be utilized. | |
| 117 | PPON | 3.6.1.1, Paragraph 1 | The PPON states "If the substantiating data for one requirement is the same as data cited for another requirement, then reference the previously provided data in Attachment 8 (Performance Requirements Worksheet) and do not provide duplicate data". Attachment 8 request parameters that require some clarification. 1) "Requirement ID" - the P-Spec does specifically not employ requirement IDs, and there are sometime multiple shalls (both implicit and specific) for certain paragraph numbers ... what should be provided in this field? 2) the "Statement of Compliance" is redundant with what would be provided in the Contractor Performance Specification... Please clarify. | ||
| 3) the "Substantiating Data List" requests "File Name", "Section / Page" and Specification Sheet Reference". However, substantiating data is also requested throughout this Ippon in the form of hyperlinks. This seems to be redundant. What is the difference between what is requested in the hyperlinks and what is requested in this field of Attachment 8? | The Attachment 8 - Performance Requirement Worksheet can be filled out and utilized as a hyperlinked substantiating data document. In the requirement ID field the P-Spec paragraph reference shall be utilized. | ||||
| 118 | PPON | 3.6.1.1, Paragraph 2 | |||
| and 3.6.1.1 | Attachment 7 (last column in the table) and Attachment 8 (item 4) both require that substantiating data be provided with respect to specific P-Spec requirements. The only difference appears to be the formats of the two attachments. It seems that the same information is being requested in several different ways (Attachment 10 requests very similar information as well, and the information would be provided in the main body per section 3.6, paragraph 1). As written, it is not possible to be compliant to this statement in the PPON. Please clarify and remove the redundant requests for the same information. | Attachment 7 is used for the Capability Factor evaluation and Attachment 10 is used for the Schedule Factor evaluation. Attachment 8 can be utilized for substantiating data. | |||
| 119 | PPON | 3.6.2, Paragraph 1 | The PPON states "For each LTAMDS P-Spec requirement, the Contractor’s Performance Specification shall be annotated to indicate how any requirement that is not satisfied in current capability will be satisfied during follow-on, incremental development or Pre-planned Product Improvement (P3I) agreements/contracts." If the intention is for the contractor to achieve the full P-Spec in the "future capability" system, then the contractor Performance Specification would remain unchanged from the original P-Spec. It seems inefficient for the contractor to use the contractor Performance Specification as the vehicle for describing how additional requirements would be met through P3I; the format of the P-Spec does not lend itself to providing such descriptions. That type of description would make much more sense to be included in the main body of the proposal. | The information can be provided in the body of the proposal and should be included in attachment 5. | |
| 120 | PPON | 3.6.2, Paragraph 1 | PPON paragraph 3.6.2 states that for “each LTAMDS P-Spec requirement, the Contractor’s Performance Specification shall be annotated to indicate how any requirement that is not satisfied in current capability will be satisfied during follow-on, incremental development or Pre-planned Product Improvement (P3I) agreements/contracts.” Are either of the Current (UMR) Capability or Future Capability configurations required to meet all LTAMDS P-Spec. requirements? | The USG desires the current and future configurations to meet all LTAMDS P-Spec requirments. | |
| 121 | PPON | 3.6.2, Paragraph 2 | The PPON states "The Offeror shall complete the Verification Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 7). " Attachment 7 is a table that includes several columns (Risk to UMR, Start Date, Finish Date, P3I, 1- | ||
| N) without instructions on how to define the values in these columns. Please clarify. | For each requirement, the Offeror is required to input a mark when the proposed design/system meets or will meet the verification event. Risk to UMR should state high, medium, low. The start date is for the verification event. Finish date is when the verfication event is complete. Columns F-K should be marked showing when the requirement/capability will be verified. | ||||
| 122 | PPON | 3.8.1.2 | Substantiating data is requested in this PPON in both attachment 7, attachment 8, the main body of the response to this PPON, the Digital Simulation Report, and the Sense-Off report. This paragraph only allows for reference to substantiating data from Attachment *8. If the substantiating data is already provided in one of the other requested areas, can the contractor reference that data or must it be resubmitted here as well. | Contractor can reference the data. However, "j. The Offeror may not assume that substantiating data submitted for any factor will be considered in the evaluation of other factors of the proposal. The Offeror is required to submit the information and supporting data required for the other factors within that factor’s submission. However, the Government reserves the right to utilize this substantiating data in other areas of the evaluation at its sole discretion." |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .