Attachment_0004-_Sentinel_A4_Draft_RFP_Instructions_to_Respondents_09_Feb_17.docx

Sentinel A4 Development Draft Request for Proposal Instructions to Respondents

INSTRUCTIONS.

The Government requests a written response to this draft RFP. There are no page limits on your responses. Contractor format is acceptable. The last date to submit questions is 24 March 2017. Your complete response to the draft RFP, including your final comments, draft RFP feedback, cost estimate, schedule assessment, and updated design concept, is due by close of business 07 April 2017.

Submit all responses in writing and include the following: Company name, Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, mailing address, classified mailing address (if required), and appropriate point of contact information. Respondents should indicate which portions of their responses are proprietary and should mark them accordingly. The Government will honor all appropriate proprietary markings and protect them to prevent improper disclosure.

Unclassified questions, comments, and responses will be via email. If sending large files, please contact the following for submittal instructions.

richard.m.redfield4.ctr@mail.mil and copy furnish johnny.l.keith.civ@mail.mil and

All classified questions, comments, and responses are by mail only. Send to the following:

US Army, CMDS

ATTN: SFAE-MSL-CMS

Bldg. 5250, Redstone Arsenal, AL, 35898 ATTN: Mr. P. Steve Inglis

Please address the following in your response:

a. Questions and comments to the draft RFP – Review the entire draft RFP Package and submit questions and comments as you develop them. The Government will review all questions received and will send the questions and answers to all respondents, unless a question concerns company proprietary information, as soon as possible following receipt. The Government encourages industry to propose specific changes to the draft RFP package to help clarify the requirements or recommend changes to the requirements to reduce cost or risk to the program. If you recommend a change, please include full rationale as to why the Government should make the change and the value of the change to the Government.

b. Overall draft RFP feedback – Is the Government asking for something that is prohibitively expensive or are the requirements too difficult to meet? Are there requirements that are technically not achievable, too challenging, or unaffordable? For the proposal instructions, are page number counts sufficient? Is the proposal response time adequate? Do you have enough information to propose successfully?

c. Non-binding cost estimate – Funding availability drives the current baseline schedule. The Government desires to confirm the available funding supports the baseline program schedule. Please develop a cost estimate by Government fiscal year (FY) in accordance with the baseline program schedule and the requirements contained in the draft RFP package. The contract start date is 01 May 2019. As part of these instructions, the Government is providing a SOW to Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) crosswalk to assist in developing your cost estimate and in allocating the costs to the proper CLINs by FY. In addition to the required contract funding profile, the Government requests that each respondent submit supporting rationale (e.g., a summary basis of estimate) used in developing the estimate so that the Government can understand the estimate and what affects the costs. The Government is also interested in the cost elements that drive the estimate, both performance requirements and SOW requirements. Please identify requirements that the Government may choose to defer to a future product-improvement contract and the resulting cost reduction for the baseline contract.

d. Baseline schedule assessment (schedule is included below) – There are two firm dates on the Sentinel A4 schedule: the 01 May 2019 contract start date and contract completion before October 2025. Are the times to the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and the Critical Design Review (CDR) adequate to design the system? Can the Government accelerate these dates? If so, how does this affect your baseline cost estimate? Is 12 months adequate to deliver the first four Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) prototypes? Is one year adequate to deliver the first five Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) units? Is nine months adequate to deliver the next eight LRIP units? Will you require long-lead material buys? Are there other schedule risks that the Government should consider? If you recommend changes to the baseline schedule, how does this affect your baseline cost estimate? The Government desires to accelerate the CDR and the EMD deliveries by up to six months and determine the cost affects to the baseline cost estimate.

e. Update prior concept submittals. For those respondents that submitted a response to the prior Sentinel A4 Request for Information (RFI), the Government is interested if your concept paper for the Sentinel A4 radar has changed based on the draft RFP requirements. Please submit your changes or a revised concept paper, with changes noted, for Government review. The Government plans to discuss your concept papers at the follow-on one-on-one discussions.

f. Please use the following dates for planning purposes. All dates are subject to change.

Baseline Schedule

SOW to CLIN Crosswalk

3.0

3.1.1 , 3.1.2 , 3.1.3 , 3.1.3.1 , 3.1.3.2 , 3.1.3.3 , 3.1.4

3.1.1 , 3.1.2 , 3.1.3 , 3.1.3.1 , 3.1.3.2 , 3.1.3.3 , 3.1.4

3.2

3.2

3.3.1 , 3.3.1.1 , 3.3.1.2 , 3.3.2 , 3.3.3 , 3.3.4

3.3.5.1 , 3.3.5.2 , 3.3.5.3

3.3.6.1 , 3.3.6.2

3.3.7

3.3.8 , 3.3.8.1 , 3.3.8.2 , 3.3.8.3 , 3.3.8.4

3.3.9 , 3.3.9.1 , 3.3.9.2 , 3.3.9.3 , 3.3.9.4 , 3.3.9.5

3.3.10.1 , 3.3.10.2 , 3.3.10.3 , 3.3.10.5 , 3.3.10.6 , 3.3.10.7

3.3.10.8

3.3.11 , 3.3.11.1 , 3.3.11.2 , 3.3.11.3 , 3.3.11.4 , 3.3.11.5

3.3.12 , 3.3.12.1 , 3.3.12.2

3.3.12.3

First Article Test, Verification

3.3.13

3.3.13

3.3.14 , 3.3.14.1 , 3.3.14.2 , 3.3.14.4 , 3.3.14.5 , 3.3.14.6 , 3.3.14.8

3.3.15.1 , 3.3.15.2 , 3.3.15.3 , 3.3.15.4 , 3.3.15.5 , 3.3.15.6 , 3.3.15.7 , 3.3.15.8

3.4.1 , 3.4.1.1 , 3.4.1.2 , 3.4.1.3

3.4.2.1 , 3.4.2.2 , 3.4.2.3 , 3.4.2.4 , 3.4.2.5

3.4.3 , 3.4.3.1 , 3.4.3.5 , 3.4.3.6

3.4.4.1 , 3.4.4.4

3.4.5 , 3.4.5.1 , 3.4.5.2 , 3.4.5.3 , 3.4.5.4 , 3.4.5.5 , 3.4.5.6 , 3.4.5.7

3.4.6

3.4.7.1 , 3.4.7.2

3.4.10

System Test and Evaluation

3.5 , 3.5.1.1 , 3.5.1.2 , 3.5.1.3 , 3.5.1.4 , 3.5.2 , 3.5.3 , 3.5.4

3.5 , 3.5.1.1 , 3.5.1.2 , 3.5.1.3 , 3.5.1.4 , 3.5.2 , 3.5.5

3.5 , 3.5.1.2 , 3.5.1.3 , 3.5.1.4 , 3.5.2 , 3.5.5, 3.5.6

3.7 , 3.7.1 , 3.7.2 , 3.7.2.1

Operational/ Site Activation

3.9.1 , 3.9.2

3.9.1 , 3.9.2

3.10

3.10

Use of Non-Government Support Contractors

** ATTENTION** The Government plans to use non-Government support contractors in assessing industry responses to the draft RFP package and for the follow-on one-on-one information exchange discussions. Pursuant to FAR Part 9.505-4, non-Government support contractors must execute an agreement with each industry respondent that states that they will (1) protect the respondent's information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than which it was furnished. Each respondent must identify proprietary information and each respondent must be willing to sign non-disclosure agreements with the non-Government support contractors listed below so the Government can properly protect the proprietary information submitted. The following list of non-Government support contractors will support this assessment. The list includes support contractor prime contractors and their subcontractors.

1) Canvas, Inc., 4092 Memorial Parkway SW, Suite 100, Huntsville, AL 35802; POC: Jami Peyton, (256) 489-2988, jamipeyton@canvas-inc.com.

2) deciBel Research, Inc., P. O. Box 5368 Huntsville AL 35814; POC: Debbie Agarwal. 256-489-6193, dagarwal@dbresearch.net.

3) Intuitive Research and Technology Corporation, 5030 Bradford Drive NW, Bldg. 2, Suite 205, Huntsville, AL 35805; POC: Christine Schaefer, 256-922-9300, EX-1136, Christine.schaefer@irtc-hq.com.

4) FreEnt Technologies, Inc., PO Box 5365, Huntsville, AL 35814; POC: Elizabeth Bourland, 256-653-1052, febourland.freent@icloud.com.

5) University of Alabama in Huntsville, 301 Sparkman Drive, VBRH E26, Huntsville, AL 35899, POC: Gloria W. Greene, MA, CRA, Director, Sponsored Programs, 256-824-2657, Greeneg@uah.edu, www.uah.edu/osp/.

6) Dynetics, 4900 Bradford Drive, Huntsville, AL 35806; POC: Mike Frazier, 256-313-1160

7) Booz Allen Hamilton, 6767 Madison Pike #300, Huntsville, AL 35806; POC: Lisa Smith, 256-799-2846, Smith_Lisa2@bah.com.

8) Penta Research, 641 Wynn Drive, Suite 104, Huntsville, AL 35816; POC: Mike Anderson, 256-837-5553 x 42, Mike.Anderson@penta-inc.com

9) Georgia Tech Applied Research Corporation, 505 10TH ST, Atlanta, GA 30332-0001, POC: Darrell Wright, darrell.wright@gtri.gatech.edu

10) KBRWyle, 345 Bob Heath Drive, Huntsville, AL 35806; POC Jerry Craig, 256-895-8845

11) Aegis Technologies Group, 410 Jan Davis Drive, Huntsville, AL 35806, POC: Terry Carter, 256-922-0802, tcarter@aegistg.com

12) Five Stones Research Corporation, 5767 Cove Commons Dr, Suite 103, Brownsboro, AL 35741; POC: Steve Willhelm, 256-975-0848, To expedite the process, we request that each industry respondent contact the above companies at the earliest opportunity to effect execution of such an agreement prior to sending your response. Each industry respondent is required to execute these agreements and submit copies of the agreements to the contracting officer.

image1.png