MPF_W56HZV-18-R-0001_-_Questions_and_Answers_-_BATCH_2_(Distro_A).pdf

RFP

Reference Question Response

1 Section B

Issue: Contract award versus funding date Recommendation: Clarify “Days After Award” to mean the day the contract is signed and funded.

Rationale: Clarifying “Days After Award” reduces the assumptions made as to what is the actual start date for determining CLIN and CDRL deliveries.

For all EMD efforts (CLINs, CDRLs, scope, etc. "Days After Award" means days after the contract is signed by the Contracting Officer.

Since all LRIP efforts are contract options, "Days After Award" mean days after the options are exercised via a modifications signed by the Contracting Officer.

2 Section C

Issue: C.1.1.1.2 Information Exchanges states “Within 10 calendar days after contract award, the contractor shall provide the Government with a list of personnel requiring access to the MPF SharePoint folder” however the Offerors may require access to the information prior to contract award in order mitigate risk and achieve the early MPF milestones.

Recommendation: The government approve an offerer’s key technical personnel (e.g. chief engineer, systems engineering lead and security systems engineering lead) Common Access Card (CAC) requests after proposal submittal. The Government’s stated purpose is to provide MPF on a significantly reduced timeline; early access to Government information prior to contract award facilitates achieving that purpose.

Rationale: The Government’s stated purpose is to provide MPF on a significantly reduced timeline; early access to Government information prior to contract award facilitates achieving that purpose.

The Government will not provide access to Government information prior to award outside of the solicitation and evaluation process. Offerors should make any pre-award requests for information to the Contracting Ofiicer. The Goverment may consider expedited access to contractor personnel at contract award.

3 Exhibit A

Issue: The DID cited as the Authority for CDRL A017 in Exhibit A (DI-ADMIN-81306) specifically indicates that the requested deliverable must describe “… the contractor's implementation of the Government developed Program Protection Plan (PPP).” The RFP,however, does not appear to include the Government’s PPP, making the scope of this effort unable to be determined.

Recommendation: Provide the Government Program Protection Plan with the RFP.

Rationale: The Offeror needs to understand the programmatic requirements in order to provide a complete proposal.

The PPP is currently under development because the Government is using an abbreviated acquisition schedule to enter the Acquisition Life Cycle at Milestone B for Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF). At this stage of development, MPF does not have any critical components in the context of Information and

Communication Technologies (ICTs). Critical Functional Analysis as well as Information and

Communication Technologies will be reassessed/re‐evaluated by the Government at the Design Maturity

Review. Based on proposed designs, proper Program Protection and Technology Controls may be implemented at that time, IAW Chapter 9 of the Defense Acquisition Guidebook and Department of

Defense Instruction 5000.02. Offerors should be able to propose based on their internal product assessment and their knowledge of general PPP requirements.

4 Attachment 28

Issue: The table states in Line 36, “Information required by std or other applicable directive is omitted or incorrect.” This implies there is a MIL-STD or equivalent directive that will be applied to the publication reviews.

The RFP does not appear to provide any specific standard the Government intends to use during those reviews.

Recommendation: The Government should specify the standards they plan to use during the publication reviews.

Rationale: The Offeror’s need to understand the specific standards to support planning and schedule development of the referenced publications in order to support the MPF program deliverable dates.

The standard the Government intends on using during the reviews of draft publication work packages is MIL STD 40051-2c for ETM's. Both content and format is covered by this standard. Attachment 28 will be updated in RFP Amendment 0001.

5 Attachment 28

Issue: Several lines in the Attachment table appear overly restrictive. For instance, Line 37 which states, “Information is included that is not required.” and Class column indicates this is a Major defect.

Recommendation: Recommended changes to the Class column in the table are below: Line 36 call out mil standard, lines 26, 40,43, 49, 50, and 51 make class standard "Other", delete line 37. Remove IETM requirement for lines 43 and 52. (Note review chart provided with Q&A matrix when formulating a response) Rationale: The current criteria applied to publications may delay the Government acceptance of these documents without adding value or mission performance. Past programs have typically assessed this type of defect as an Other/Minor, which has deemed the publication acceptable without change.

MIL-STD 40051-2C will be added to Line 36 and the Class column for Line 37 will be changed from "Major" to "Other". The changes will incorporated into RFP Amendment 0001. The "X" in the IETM column for Lines 43 and 52 are only applicable to IETMs. All other lines remain unchanged.

6 Attachment 35

Issue: The Pricing Spreadsheet appears to calculate the Ceiling Price based on Target Price. Recommendation:

Change the spreadsheet calculation so that the Ceiling Price Percentage is applied against the Target Cost.

Rationale: Past TACOM programs have used a formula for calculating the Ceiling Price based on applying the Ceiling Price Percentage to the Target Cost. Applying the percentage to the Target Price results in a higher Ceiling Price.

The Ceiling Price for LRIP vehicles will remain as stated in the Pricing Spreadsheet (based on target price).

7 Attachment 20

Attachment 20 states, “The Government will provide contractor with latest Government CAD Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) document, CAD start part files, drawing formats, CAD attribute list, and IBOM Excel spreadsheet template at the Start of Work Meeting (SOWM).” Request that the information be provided now.

Attachment 20 will be updated to include the Government CAD Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) document, CAD start part files, drawing formats, BOM sample, and CAD attribute lists in RFP Amendment 0001. The BOM is a deliverable of the contract referenced in C.1.1.6.5 and C.2.1.5.5. The sample IBOM Excel spreadsheet template is shown in appendix D of Attachment 20. It is not an editable excel file so the offeror will have to create one.

8 A028

Per the RFP: The contractor shall develop and deliver an E3 Control Plan and an E3 Verification Plan in accordance with CDRL A028. These plans shall include a system level bonds and grounds inspection procedure, documentation on the design and test support analysis defined in ATPD-2407 (Attachment 10), E3 for US Army Tank and Automotive Vehicle Systems, and methods from MIL-STD-464C including tailoring identified in the E3 Verification Plan.

Question: CDRL A028 references DI-EMCS-81541B as the authority, which is primarily related to the preparation of E3 Verification Procedures (E3VP). Preparation of an E3 Control Plan is done in accordance with DI-EMCS-80199C, which is not referenced. Is A028 intended to include both the E3 Control Plan and an E3 Verification Plan, and if so, should DI-EMCS-80199C also be referenced.

C.1.2.6 will be CHANGED FROM "...The contractor shall develop and deliver an E3 Control Plan and an E3 Verification Plan in accordance with CDRL A028..." and CHANGED TO: "...The contractor shall develop an E3 Control Plan. The contractor shall and develop and deliver an E3 Verification Plan in accordance with CDRL A028...". This will be updated in RFP Amendment 0001.

9 Attachment 40

Per Attach 40 Title page: Distribution Statement D only applies when form is not filled in. Once filled, apply Distribution Statement F and check the MPF Security Class Guide for proper distribution statement/markings.

Question: Since Attach 40 Title page requires use of Distribution Statement F and the USG FRFP Attachment 05 MPF SCG is limited to Statements D & E, please clarify whether Statement F is required, or if Attach 05 MPF SCG document will be modified to include Statement F.

Attachment 40 will be marked with Distribution Statement A; however, when Attachment 40 is filled-in the vendor will select the Distribution Statement per the MPF Security Classification Guide. This will be updated in RFP Amendment 0001.

10 Attachment 07 MPF-PSPEC-718: This unclassified PSPEC requirement references a classified requirement, C-PSPEC-946, which does not exist. Please verify that there is a classified requirement in the classified PSPEC if one is referenced in the unclassified PSPEC.

A corresponding C-SPEC-946 has been added to the C-SPEC. Reference the threat in C-SPEC-708 in the interim. The Classiified PSPEC will be updated in RFP Amendment 0001.

11 DD254

Item 13., second paragraph, states that "Access to technical data by foreign interests ......." Can green card holders

(permanent residents) have access to technical data without an export authorization? Per ITAR, permanent residents are U.S. persons.

Green card holders/permanent residents are considered U.S. persons and therefore would be allowed to have access to tech data.

12 DD254

Item 11.j, no check mark but in item 13., it states that the contractor shall follow the Government's OPSEC Plan, as well as annexes and updates, therefore, shouldn't item 11.j have a check mark? The DD254 will be revised in RFP Amendment 0001 and block 11.j will be checked.

MPF RFP W56HZV‐18‐R‐0001 ‐ Questions and Answers ‐ BATCH 2 (Distro A)