LIMWS_Vendor_Questions_and_Answers_5_26_17.pdf

Limited Interim Missile Warning System (LIMWS) Quick Reaction Capability (QRC)

Questions from Draft RFP and Pre-Solicitation Conference

Reference Questions Answers LIMWS QRC SOW; Section

3.1 General Requirements

Referenced section states "LIMWS’ primary components shall include a suite of mid-wave infrared sensors, the LIMWS System Processor and a Control/Display Unit."

Question: Are mid-wave infrared sensors a mandatory requirement?

Yes. Mid-wave infrared sensors are a mandatory requirement for

LIMWS.

PSAC

Can we get access to the LIMWS Specification Briefing given by Joe Befecadu?

Instructions for receiving the classified briefing from the LIMWS Pre-Solicitation Conference were provided on 11 May 2017 via FedBizOpps and on 19 May 2017 via e-mail to the Pre-Solicitation Conference attendees.

Draft RFP For the LIMWS RFP submission, can the contractor provide exhaustive data developed via a UK MOD approved alternative to E-MSIG, identifying a path to E-MSIG implementation post-RFP submission?

No.

Draft RFP

Will the US Army support a Government-to- Government transfer of the classified LIMWS specification to the UK Government (MOD) with understanding Thales UK will be the document's intended recipient?

No.

General: No specific reference.

In light of the US Army’s desire for a quick reaction capability (QRC), the documentation/requirements in the draft solicitation appears to be more representative of a rigorous developmental and test program. Is the US Army’s intent to acquire and quickly field an operationally effective system or to optimize and refine a new system for fielding through an extensive developmental activity?

The Army is seeking to provide the required capability within the QRC schedule.

DD-254 – Contract Security Classification Specification

a) Missing Attachment A description of TEMPEST, OPSEC and TARP requirements;

b) Missing Intelligence Addendum (NON-SCI Contracts);

c) Is the requirement for a COMSEC account being driven by the interface to the CIRCM or for key accounts?

All additional attachments will be provided with the Final RFP.

COMSEC is required to support secure communication between offeror and USG.

SOW para 3.1 General Requirements:

Is the Control/Display Unit that interfaces with the ALEE-47 mentioned as part of the LIMWS suite currently part of the avionics suite (e.g. CMWS) of the US Army UH-60M? Note: The existing CDU is for a legacy CMWS system.

There is no CDU for the ALE-47.

The current CMWS CDU is not part of LIMWS. LIMWS shall meet CDU requirements identified in SPS.

SOW para 3.1 General Requirements

The reference paragraph cites LIMWS passing MW and HFI audio and display information to the PVI via the CDU. However, reference is also made to the AGP on AH-64E. Para 1.1 and 3.1 refer to A-Kit for UH-60M only.

Noted.

SOW para 3.3.7 Open System Architecture

Is it expected that Legacy Design systems (mature, fully baselined) that are being proposed as baseline variants, must modify their existing, interfaces to comply with open system architecture?

All offerors shall meet LIMWS system requirements for OSA as stated in the LIMWS SOW.

SOW 3.4.7 A-Kits for Modification Work Order Development and Test

Request for 4 initial A-kits for SIL, RCT, and bench testing then additional 4 A-Kits for validation, verification, bench and maintenance support. CLIN 001 of SF33 requests 9 A-kit prototypes preferred delivery by 30 Jun 18.

The requirement for eight (8) A- Kits in 3.4.7 does not include the one (1) prototype in 3.4.6 which will be installed by the offerors.

SOW 3.5.2.1

Software/Firmware Design/Development

Invokes compliance to RTCA/DO-178; Industry Standards citations reflect DO-178C but did not indicate level. What level is requested?

USG expects offerors to define their current DO-178 compliance level.

SOW Appendix G & H:

Requirements Matrix for SOW Options (Identical Titles)

Was this intended to be two separate Appendices?

Note: Appendices B thru J pending.

Final list of appendices will be provided with the Final RFP.

System Performance Specification

Can the LIMWS SPS be sanitized so that an unclassified version can be made available?

No. The LIMWS SPS will remain Classified.

Ethernet Requirement

Can the US Army clarify the functions of all the Ethernet ports?

The 4 Ethernet ports shall be designed for PVI, CIRCM, Test, and a spare for growth.

Section L - Volume 2 – DSM

In case of a non-development item (i.e. existing system), the DSM that is being used to validate system performance against requirements may slightly vary to that stated in SOW DSM requirements. Is it right to assume, that subject to USG approval, such variance would be acceptable?

No. The stated DSM requirements ensure that each system's performance can be evaluated based upon approved USG models. The government will not be able to validate the output, and therefore system performance, from noncompliant DSMs.

SOW 3.4.1.5 Environmental Covers For Installed System;

SOW 3.4.1.6 Existing Aircraft Environmental Cover Modification

How and when will host platform data and/or access to manuals in the IETM be provided to allow for review and environmental cover design consideration for the proposal phase?

Appropriate GFP will be provided upon request IAW applicable distribution statements.

Section H Narrative: H-13 Organizational Conflict of Interest; Subparagraph b)

The text (excerpt from subparagraph b) appears to restrict contractors (any tier) from any participation in any capacity in Government contracts, subcontracts or proposal that result directly from the performance of work under this contract. Is this what was intended for Acquisition QRC contracts?

H-13 will not be included in the Final RFP.

Document: W58RGZ-17-R- 0211; Sections: B and F;

Pages: 4 to 10, 14 & 66

The referenced document states, "All hardware deliveries CLINs are acceptance and inspection at destination." Would the Gov’t please consider changing this directive to allow acceptance and inspection FOB origin?

The Government will consider all delivery terms and conditions and update the Final RFP as appropriate.

Document: Attachment 0004 - Section L; Chapter:

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION;

Section: 1. INTRODUCTION;

Page: 1

The referenced document states, "The offeror shall include a requirements traceability matrix (requirements compliance matrix) that clearly identifies where the offeror’s proposal demonstrates each RFP requirement has been addressed."

Would the Gov’t please clarify the broad directive for "traceability matrix for each RFP requirement”, as there are separate requirements for a crosswalk to the proposal and SOW; a compliance matrix to the SPS; and a cross reference to the evaluation criteria? Is it to be printed, if so, is it included in the page limits, and is it part of the Technical Volume narrative?

The Proposal Crosswalk is a cross-walk between the offeror's proposal and the RFP (including SOW, SPS, Evaluation Criteria, ICD, CWBS, etc.) and shall be submitted IAW Section L of the Final RFP as Annex D. The System Design and Effectiveness Requirements Compliance Matrix is a compliance matrix that addresses each requirement in the SPS and shall be submitted IAW Section L of the Final RFP as Annex B.

Document: Attachment 0004 - Section L; Chapter:

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION;

Section: j. Proposal Crosswalk; Page: 3

The referenced document states, "All proposals must clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the prospective offerors have a thorough understanding of the requirements and associated risk to include a crosswalk between proposal, Statement of Work (SOW), LIMWS SPS, Interface Control Document (ICD), and the Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS)." Would the Gov’t please amplify the direction to provide a crosswalk including where it is to be packaged in the proposal and if it is included within page limit?

The Proposal Crosswalk is a cross-walk between the offeror's proposal and the RFP (including SOW, SPS, Evaluation Criteria, ICD, CWBS, etc.) and shall be submitted IAW Section L of the Final RFP as Annex D. The System Design and Effectiveness Requirements Compliance Matrix is a compliance matrix that addresses each requirement in the SPS and shall be submitted IAW Section L of the Final RFP as Annex B.

Document: Attachment 0004 - Section L; Chapter:

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION;

Crosswalk; Page: 4

The referenced document states, "The offerors shall cross-reference their proposal to all evaluation criteria." Would the Gov’t please amplify the direction to provide this cross-reference matrix including whether this is part of the crosswalk, where it is to be packaged in the proposal and if it is included within page limit?

The Proposal Crosswalk is a cross-walk between the offeror's proposal and the RFP (including SOW, SPS, Evaluation Criteria, ICD, CWBS, etc.) and shall be submitted IAW Section L of the Final RFP as Annex D. The System Design and Effectiveness Requirements Compliance Matrix is a compliance matrix that addresses each requirement in the SPS and shall be submitted IAW Section L of the Final RFP as Annex B.

Document: Attachment 0004 - Section L; Chapter:

4. VOLUME II - TECHNICAL;

Section: C. SCHEDULE - (vii); Page: 6

The referenced document states, "The offeror shall provide a manufacturing strategy and plan."

Would the Gov’t please amplify the direction to provide this manufacturing plan including whether this is part of the body of the Technical Volume or whether it is to be provided separately in an Annex? Also, please clarify if this plan is included within page limit?

The manufacturing strategy and plan is part of the Technical Volume, it may be provided as an annex to the Technical Volume, but is included in the Technical Volume page limitation.

Document: Attachment 0004 - Section L; Chapter:

4. VOLUME II - TECHNICAL;

Section: D. PERFORMANCE;

Page: 7

The referenced document states, "For all elements in the performance section, the offeror shall provide an editable Microsoft Excel file, hereon in referred to as Evaluation Matrix”. Would the Gov’t please clarify the directive to provide an "Evaluation Matrix"? Is it to be printed, if so, is it to be included in the page limits, and is it part of the Technical Volume narrative? Would the Gov't accept the "Evaluation Matrix" as an unprinted, page unrestricted separate file or Appendix to the Technical Volume?

The Evaluation Matrix is an editable Microsoft Excel file provided by the Government that the offeror shall populate and provide as Annex C of their proposal IAW Section L of the Final RFP.

Document: Attachment 0004 - Section L; Chapter:

4. VOLUME II - TECHNICAL;

Section: B. SENSOR

ALIGNMENT, D.

PERFORMANCE, D.

PERFORMANCE (ii) and (v);

Pages: 5, 7, 8

The referenced document states, "The offeror is required to provide test data." Would the Gov't accept the test data as unprinted, page unrestricted separate files or as Appendices to the Technical Volume?

No. The test data will be included within the Technical Volume and is included in the page limitations.

Document: Attachment 0001 - SOW; Chapter:

3.7.2. CONFIGURATION

The referenced document states, "The PBP CD shall be adequate for the fabrication of prototypes for test. The PBL will be established post-CDR and verified based on the physical configuration

PBP was a typo and should be Product Baseline (PBL) as defined in the SOW. The Government will update the SOW for the Final RFP.

DOCUMENTATION;

Section: 3.7.2; Page: 49 audit." Would the Gov't please define the acronym "PBP" and clarify the requirement?

0001 - SOW; Chapter:

3.11.1.9. FAILURE

REPORTING ANALYSIS AND

CORRECTIVE ACTION

SYSTEM; Section: 3.11.1.9;

Page: 68

The referenced document states, "The Contractor shall include all failures which occur at their suppliers in the contractors FRACAS system for tracking and potential corrective actions." Would the Gov’t please consider removing this requirement or changing it to read major subcontractors only?

Yes. The Government will consider modifying this requirement and will be finalized prior to the Final

RFP.

0001 - SOW; Chapter:

3.11.1.9. FAILURE

REPORTING ANALYSIS AND

CORRECTIVE ACTION

SYSTEM; Section: 3.11.1.9;

Page: 69 shall develop, or utilize an already developed, FRACAS database with query capability to specifically address all contractor (including those that occur during the production of all USG assets prior to USG acceptance), supplier, and USG reported failure incidents." Would the Gov’t please consider removing this requirement or changing it to read major subcontractors only?

Yes. The Government will consider modifying this requirement and

0003 - SECTION H; Chapter:

H-8 OPTIONS; Section: H-8 C.; Page: 1

The referenced document states regarding the Time of Exercise, "Any time during the period of performance" and "Contract expiration". Would the Gov’t please provide the date of "Contract Expiration" and clarify the distinction between it and "Any time during the period of performance"?

The options may be exercised anytime between Contract Award and five (5) years after contract award. Contract Expiration is five

(5) years after contract award.

Document: Attachment 0001 - SOW; Chapter: 3.2.8 Travel; Section: 3.2.8; Page:

shall request approval from the COR at least three

(3) business days prior to each travel event."

Would the Gov't please consider revising this all-inclusive directive to "request approval . . . for travel to Gov't requested or Gov't attended events"?

Yes. The Government will consider modifying this requirement and

0004 - Section L; Chapter:

4. VOLUME II - TECHNICAL;

Section: 6. PAST PERFORMANCE; Page: 15

The referenced document states, "Offerors shall submit three (3) Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and one (1) contract for each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three (3) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation." Would the Government please provide the operational definition and/or clarification of the term "major subcontractor" as it relates to the Past Performance Volume requirements?

Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror's overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort.

0005 - Section M; Pages: All

Would the Gov't clarify in Section M if and where

"ANNEX B - SYSTEM DESIGN AND EFFECTIVENESS

COMPLIANCE MATRIX" is to be evaluated?

Annex B will be evaluated under the performance sub-factor of technical factor. Section M will be updated.

Document: Attachment 0004 - Section L; Chapter:

4. VOLUME II - TECHNICAL;

Section: D. PERFORMANCE;

Page: 7

The referenced document states, "U.S.

Government witnessed test data will be accorded more weight than third-party witnessed test data, contractor test data and analysis." Would the Government consider revising the first paragraph in this referenced section to accord equal weighting for all collected live fire test substantiated data and analysis?

No. The weighting criteria will remain as stated in the RFP.

Document: Attachment 0004 - Section L; Chapter:

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION;

Crosswalk; Page: 3

The referenced document states, "All proposals must clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the prospective offerors have a thorough understanding of the requirements and associated risk to include a crosswalk between proposal, Statement of Work (SOW), LIMWS SPS, Interface Control Document (ICD), and the Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS)." Would the Gov’t clarify the directive to provide a crosswalk to the "Interface Control Document (ICD)", as an ICD is not provided nor defined in the instructions?

Appropriate GFP will be provided upon request after Final RFP IAW applicable distribution statements.

Document: Attachment 0001 - SOW; Sections 3.5.2, 3.4.1 shall include all platform types utilized in fielded platforms for each applicable platform-specific code" and "The Contractor shall design the A-kit with respect to the Pilot-Vehicle Interface in such a manner as to not require modification of aircraft/ancillary system SW." Will the Gov't please specify the specific platforms types that the LIMWS is required to interface to?

LIMWS software is required to interface to all platforms identified in SPS. For this contract, offeror is required to develop the A-Kit to support fielding LIMWS on UH-60M and support USG development for all other platform A-Kits.

Document: W58RGZ-17-R- 0211; Chapter: CLIN 0001, CLIN 0002, CLIN 0005, CLIN

0006; Pages: 4, 6, 7

How does the Gov't define the exit criteria for first unit equip.?

Required delivery schedule will be stated in Section B and Section F.

Document: W58RGZ-17-R- 0211; Chapter: F-13

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES--

SUPPLIES, SERVICES, OR

RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT; Section: F- 13 a, b; Pages: 15 & 16

The referenced document states, "(a) If the Contractor fails to deliver the supplies or perform the services within the time specified in this contract, the Contractor shall, in place of actual damages, pay to the Government liquidated damages of TBD per calendar day of delay. (b) If the Government terminates this contract in whole or in part under the Default -- Fixed-Price Supply and Service clause, the Contractor is liable for

The Government intends to include a Liquidated Damages provision in the RFP. The Government does not intend to include incentives.

liquidated damages accruing until the Government reasonably obtains delivery or performance of similar supplies or services. These liquidated damages are in addition to excess costs of repurchase under the Termination clause." Would the Government consider removing the overly-punitive liquidated damages clause and instead use incentive contracting terms (CPIF and FFIF) to provide contractor motivation for schedule performance while lowering the cost to the Government?

Document: W58RGZ-17-R- 0211 - Attachment 0001 - SOW; Chapter: SUPPLIES

OR SERVICES AND

PRICES/COSTS; Section: B, 3.3.3; Pages: 4, 18-20

The referenced document states, "CLINs 0001, 0002, 0005, 0006" and "Dates specified for PAC, Kickoff TIM, IBR, SRR, PDR, CDR" Will the Contractor have the flexibility to develop a schedule that will enable an integrated development, test and delivery approach to meet the Q2FY2020 FUE by recommending the specific development milestones (e.g. PDR, CDR, etc.), prototype deliveries to allow a progressive approach to Government testing, and initial production deliveries to support FUE?

Program milestone meeting and review dates are guidelines.

However, the hardware delivery schedule in the CLINs must be met to allow sufficient time for system testing. The Government will review CLIN delivery dates.

Document: W58RGZ-17-R- 0211; Chapter: SECTION F -

DELIVERIES OR

PERFORMANCE; Section:

(a); Page: 14

The Government states that "the Government will evaluate equally, as regards to delivery, offers that propose delivery of each quantity within the applicable delivery period specified above". Would contractors be correct to understand that proposing an accelerated delivery schedule will not receive any benefit in evaluation and if so, should this referenced Section F wording be added to Section M?

The merits and risk of a proposed accelerated schedule will be considered/evaluated under the Schedule evaluation sub-factor. A proposed delivery schedule that does not meet the requirements stated in Section F is not compliant with the RFP.

Document: Attachment 0001 - SOW; Chapter:

3.4.10.4. AIRCRAFT

MAINTENANCE; Section:

3.4.10.4; Page: 33

The referenced document states, "While aircraft are under supervision of the contractor during A- Kit installation activities, the Contractor shall perform the necessary scheduled/unscheduled aircraft maintenance actions required to return the aircraft to flyable status."

Would the Gov't consider removing this paragraph in its entirety?

No. However the Government will provide additional guidance with the Final RFP. Under Section 3.4.10.4, the Government has provided an estimate of 200 labor hours per aircraft for aircraft maintenance.

Document: Statement of Work Sections 3.4 and 3.9.1

If the currently installed CMWS A-Kits can be used while meeting all LIMWS specification and SOW requirements, can contractors assume installed A- Kits can be provided as GFE?

Yes. All offerors can assume CMWS A-Kit will be installed on aircraft and can be provided as GFP. However, LIMWS must meet A-Kit and B-Kit requirements specified in the Final RFP.

Section M; 1,c. Page 4

What type of testing does the Government have planned starting at 12 months after contract award?

The prototype delivery schedule is based upon Government testing, which is still being planned by the Government.

Section M, Section: 1,c.

If Government testing is not scheduled to begin until 12 months after contract award, would the Government entertain tying the delivery of prototype systems per CLIN 0001/0002 to the Government testing schedule and/or allowing the Contractor to propose a phased delivery schedule between the date specified in CLIN 0001/0002 and the start of Government testing?

The Government will provide a delivery schedule with the Final RFP. The prototype delivery schedule is based upon Government testing, which is still being planned by the Government.

W58RGZ-17-R-0211;

Section: B; Page: 4

Can the Government identify the desired usage of the 30 desired prototype units as requested in CLIN 0002? If the Government assumes the prototype systems will be used for Government prototype testing, DT/OT, Contractor risk reduction testing, and qualification testing, can the Contractor provide a phased delivery schedule of the 30 systems to achieve the needs of both early prototype testing as well as formal qualification testing?

The Government will provide a delivery schedule with the Final

SPS Line 234

Will the Government provide the following ICD and IETMS either prior to or in conjunction with the final RFP: UH-60M & AH-64E CMWS A-KIT designs & drawings; ICD for Ethernet AGP interface depicted in figure 1 in SPS?

Appropriate GFP will be provided upon request after Final RFP IAW applicable distribution statements.

W58RGZ-17-R-0211;

Section: B; Page: 8

Would the Government entertain allowing the Contractor to propose a phased B-Kit production delivery schedule for the deliveries as outlined in CLIN 0008 for option delivery years 1 and 2 to enable a more efficient ramp to rate, with completion outside of current CLIN 0008 delivery dates for those option years but not to exceed the final delivery date of year 3?

The Government will provide a delivery schedule with the Final

SPS Lines 895-898

Will the Government entertain system reliability as a separately evaluated criteria within Section M?

No.

Section M; Pages: All.

Given the QRC nature of LIMWS, would the Government consider reducing the rigor on certain SOW items, for example CDRLs, specifically:

Quantity of CDRLs; Number of revised submittals of CDRL; Monthly TIMs with formal CDRLs? Would the USG consider consolidation of CDRLs?

Noted. Final RFP will reflect any changes to the CDRLs.

Section M; Section B.1.a (Page 4) and B.1.d.viii (page 6)

Will the Government consider including the quality of the offeror's DSM as an evaluation criteria in Section M in addition to the Acceptable/Unacceptable evaluation?

The Final RFP will reflect the evaluation criteria.

Industry Day Emphasis

Will the Government consider including the offeror's A-Kit approach for system upgradability and bandwidth reserve as an evaluation criteria in Section M?

The Final RFP will reflect the evaluation criteria.

Section M, Section:

B.1.d.vii (page 6)

Will the Government consider modifying the Section M criteria for the evaluation of Size, Weight and Power (SWaP) from targeting a future reduction to an evaluation of the Offeror's initial proposed solution?

The Final RFP will reflect the evaluation criteria.

RFI Will the government provide offerors the Interface control document to the countermeasure systems required for LIMWS interface?

Appropriate GFP will be provided upon request after Final RFP IAW applicable distribution statements.

RFI Does the LIMWS system require A-Kit development for platforms other than UH-60M?

Paragraph 3.1 attachment 0001 and CLIN 001 indicate UH-60M only. There is a reference to the AH-64E Aircraft Gateway Processor but no CLIN reference.

For this contract, offeror is required to develop the A-Kit to support fielding LIMWS on UH- 60M and support USG development for all other platform A-Kits. LIMWS software is required to interface to all platforms identified in SPS.

RFI CLINS 0005, 0006, 0007 and 0008 are stated as Firm Fixed Price. Would the government consider ROM’s for planning and budgetary purposes now given that these options are exercised post award?

No.

RFI Given the need to provide accurate pricing from our suppliers for LIMWS, will the government consider a 60-day response time for the LIMWS

RFP?

No. The QRC schedule does not allow for a 60 day response period.

RFI Is there a possibility of multiple awards for CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 and allow for a down-select within the QRC at end of prototyping phase?

The Government currently plans to award only one contract for the LIMWS program.

RFI What are the intended uses of the DSM source code deliverable?

The Government needs the ability to integrate into latest USG models and recorded scenes during flight test.

RFI CLIN0006 is structured to deliver all kits prior to installation beginning on the first unit. What is the timeline on installation after delivery? Would PM- ASE consider a phased delivery to support

Required delivery schedule will be stated in Section B and Section F.

installation timeline through FUE completion

2QFY20?

RFI Is the liquidated damages clause F-13 a firm requirement?

Yes, this is a firm requirement.

RFI CLIN 0009 describes a Level II Technical Data Package. What is the expected usage of this TDP, what rights assertions does the government expect within this priced option.

The Government expects to have sufficient TDP rights to support Depot level maintenance performed either by the Government or contractor.

RFI Within the evaluation criteria, will exceeding threshold requirements receive a higher weighting than meeting threshold requirements? Are there any requirements considered higher importance than others in the LIMWS program?

The government will evaluate the ability of the offeror's proposed system to meet the Government's requirements. Offerors which exceed threshold requirements may receive a higher rating.

However, those requirements are not weighted relative to one another. All requirements are considered equally important.

RFI Given that PM-ASE acknowledged that the draft RFP will be modified to reflect the QRC nature of the program, will a second draft be issued prior to final?

USG is not planning to release a 2nd DRAFT RFP.

RFI CLIN items 0001 and 0002 indicate a different number of A-Kits and B-Kits. Can PM ASE provide an indication on why the prototyping phase indicates this difference? Is there a preferred delivery timing associated with the 1st prototype?

System testing requirements for B-Kits dictate number of deliverables and schedule.

Offerors shall propose preferred delivery associated with first prototype to support USG testing.

RFI CDRLs are referenced as Attachment A in the draft. Can PM ASE provide the attachment for draft review?

Summary list of CDRLs are included in the Draft RFP and actual CDRLs will be provided in the Final RFP.

RFI Can PM ASE please provide the missing appendices?

Appendices will be provided with Final RFP.

PSAC Given the expedited proposal turnaround time, how quickly will the USG respond to questions against the Final RFP?

The Government will entertain questions to the Final RFP. Details will be provided in the Final RFP.

PSAC LTC Hill mentioned 12 month ARO for HW delivery of prototypes. This is different than the 6 month after contract timing in the Draft RFP. Please clarify. Current Draft RFP states June 2018 delivery of 30 prototypes.

The Government will provide a delivery schedule with the Final

PSAC During the briefings, there were many references to LIMWS and ATDS. Can the PM please provide a program timeline that shows how the two programs are intended to be harmonized? We understand it's pre-decisional, but we need to know the current state.

The PM does not intend to supply any information on ATDS.

PSAC Live fire testing was mentioned. What is timing of these events? How does participation factor into evaluation criteria? If these events happen after June/July, is there provision to amend our Technical Volume with updated data?

Timing of live fire events is unknown. Participation has no factor on the LIMWS evaluation criteria. There will not be a provision to amend the offeror's Technical Volume with live fire testing data.

PSAC System security is documented in Joe's briefing.

Will the level of certification be provided prior to RFP? Does PM expect this to be waived for QRC phase?

System security is a requirement for LIMWS. The level of certification will be defined in Final RFP.

PSAC Is there a format for Past Performance Questionnaires?

Format for PPQ will be provided with Final RFP.

PSAC Should additional clarification/questions arise following receipt of Q/A against Draft RFP on 26 May 2017, will additional time be allotted for follow-on questions?

No. There will not be another Q/A period prior to the Final RFP.

PSAC Does the classified portion of the response count against the 125 page limit?

Yes. Offerors should follow the instructions for classified information as defined in Section L of the Final RFP.

PSAC "Support" to other platforms (Non-60M), is this support in CLINs 001, 002, or in the options beyond the 36 Kits?

CLIN 0001 is for UH-60M A-Kit.

CLIN 0002 is for B-Kit. CLIN 0003 is for support for all platforms.

PSAC Can comprehensive glossary be provided for RFP response? Currently requests 8 separate glossaries (6 for volumes / 2 appendices).

Offerors should follow the instructions for glossaries as defined in Section L of the Final

RFP.

RFP Table 1 on page 2 of Section L identifies the Past Performance volume as Volume III and the Cost Volume as Volume IV, but in the narrative in Sections L and M, the numbers for those two volumes are reversed. Which is correct?

Volume III is the Cost/Price Volume. Volume IV is the Past Performance Volume. The Government will clarify in Section L of the Final RFP.

RFP In the General Instructions for Cost/Price volume, Section A, the list of elements from 1-13 on pages 9-11 contains no Element 9. Is there an Element 9?

The Government will clarify in the Final RFP.

RFP In Annex B, Performance, do the pages in the editable Excel spreadsheet count against the 50-page limit?

The editable Excel spreadsheet is the Evaluation Matrix and is not a part of Annex B. The Evaluation

Matrix, stated in the Performance sub-factor of the Technical Volume and mentioned in the question, will be Annex C. The Evaluation Matrix will be provided by the Government for the offeror to populate and submit IAW Section L of the Final RFP.

RFP Is there a requirement for anti-tamper/information technology (AT/IT) and cybersecurity for LIMWS?

AT and Cybersecurity requirements are stated in the

LIMWS SOW.

RFP Do the 2 pages or required letters of commitment and consent for major subcontractors in the Past Performance volume count against the 3 pages allocated for each major subcontractor? The contractor respectfully requests that these pages be treated like the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and no included in the volume page count.

The page count for this section will be updated in the Final RFP.

RFP Section L, A.2.a, page 1, states "Electronically embedded documents or videos or links to information outside the proposal shall not be considered. However, Section L, A.4.a, calls for offerors to submit "evidence and video that the offeror's DSM can play back both imagery and missile engagements collected during missile firing events." Where in the proposal and in what format does the customer wish the video to be submitted?

A video will not be required.

Clarification will be provided with Final RFP.

Draft RFP (A) In its description of Annex A, IMP/IMS, Section L calls for "an IMP that is structured IAW the SOW". Does this mean the outline for Annex A should be "slaved" to the SOW? If so, discussion of the SOW paragraphs that are technical in nature may be limited to cross references into the 125 pages of Volume II and the 50 pages of Annex B.

(B) Alternatively, if all SOW paragraphs are referenced in the detailed IMS, may the outline for Annex A be limited to the schedule and management topics specifically called for in Section L?

The Government has removed the requirement for an IMP in Section L of the Final RFP.

Draft RFP The placement of Annexes A and B at the bottom of Table 1 on page 2 of Section L and at the end of the evaluation factors in Section M (page 22) seems to indicate that they are annexes to the entire proposal, not just to Volume II. However, within the narrative of Section L, Annexes A and B are an integral part of Volume II, comprising Stage Two, Parts C and D, respectively.

If Annexes A and B are attachments to the entire proposal, then we assume they would be bound and submitted in separate loose-leaf binders.

However, if they are an integral part of Volume II, we assume they would be submitted in the same loose-leaf binder as the 125 pages addressing Stage One and a technical description of the offeror's design, separated by tabs. We request clarification on where the Government wishes Annexes A and B to be placed within the proposal volume structure.

Annexes A, B, C, and D are Annexes for the entire proposal.

Annexes shall be prepared and submitted IAW Section L.

Draft RFP Section L calls for Annex A to consist of (1) an IMP that includes the offeror's management approach to satisfying the key Events on the Integrated Master Plan as well as the IMP itself and (2) a comprehensive Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that includes all elements of the SOW. It calls for the IMS to be submitted in Microsoft Project 2003 or newer.

(A) Is the IMS to be submitted just electronically, or are printed pages of it also desired?

(B) If printed pages are requested, do they count against the 150-page limit for Annex A?

The Government has removed the requirement for an IMP in Section L of the Final RFP. The offeror's IMS, however, shall be submitted IAW Section L of the Final RFP.

W58RGZ-17-R-0211

Attachment 0003, page 2, Option 6 Time of Exercise

Time of exercise states "After all fifty initial production B-Kits have been ordered…" which conflicts in quantity with the W58RGZ-17-R-0211 CLIN 0006 quantity of "up to thirty six (36) B-Kit ship sets..." (Page 7 of 62, Section B).

Q: Is the quantity of CLIN 0006 supposed to be 36 or 50?

CLIN 0006 should be 36 B-Kit ship sets. USG will revise document and CLIN 0008 narrative.

Attachment_0004_Section _L.pdf, page 3 - Proposal Crosswalk

Q: Is the Proposal Crosswalk a deliverable with the proposal, or is this provided as instructional guidance?

Q: If this is a deliverable, what volume should include it, and is it excluded from page limits?

The Proposal Crosswalk is a cross-walk between the offeror's proposal and the RFP (including SOW, SPS, Evaluation Criteria, ICD, CWBS, etc.) and shall be submitted as Annex D IAW Section L of the Final RFP.

SOW Paragraph 3.1 vs. SPS Paragraph 1.1

(U) SOW Paragraph 3.1 states that "the Contractor shall design, develop, integrate, and test platform installation kits (A-Kit) for US Army UH-60M helicopters, however SPS Paragraph 1.1 calls out design for a multitude of Army platforms.

(U) Q: Please clarify the A-Kit design and integration requirements for the other platforms listed in the SPS.

For this contract, offeror is required to develop the A-Kit to support fielding LIMWS on UH- 60M and support USG development for all other platform A-Kits. LIMWS software is required to interface to all platforms identified in SPS.

SOW Paragraph 3.2.4.2

This section references a CSDR Plan, DD Form 1294.

Q: When will referenced CSDR Plan be made available to offerors?

DD Form 1294 is not referenced.

DD Form 2794 will be attached with the Final RFP.

SOW 3.2.7 and Attachment_0003_SECTIO N_H_NARRATIVE.pdf

SOW Paragraph 3.2.7 states that "The Contractor shall submit to the PCO a report that documents (at least quarterly) how they are adhering to or exceeding their proposed utilization of small business suppliers and/or service providers."

However, Attachment_0003_SECTION_H_NARRATIVE.pdf, clause H-9 states that "Actual participation data (i.e., total small business participation amount and actual amounts per the subcategories) shall be submitted in writing to the Contracting Officer semi-annually from the date of contract award."

Q: Please clarify whether semi-annual or quarterly reporting is required.

Attachment 0003 - Section H Narrative. H-9 was updated to include quarterly reporting. This conforms to the SOW and the

CDRL.

SOW Paragraph 3.3.4 and 3.4.1

References are made to documents W6DP01-P- 00245 and W6DP01-P-00110, but the documents could not be located.

Q: When will referenced attachments be made available to offerors?

W6DP01-P-00245, PM ASE Risk Management Plan, will be provided upon contract award.

W6DP01-P-00110, CIRCM ICD, and other appropriate GFP, will be provided upon request after Final RFP IAW applicable distribution statements.

SOW Paragraph 3.3.5.1

SOW Paragraph 3.3.5.1 states that "The Contractor shall document the results of up to ten

(10) trade studies performed in accordance with

CDRL A021."

Q: Are these internal contractor trade studies or trade studies directed by the Government on an as-needed basis?

(1) These are trade studies directed by the Government.

(2) No.

Q: Will these trade studies be limited to the requirements defined within the RFP?

SOW Paragraph 3.4.1.5

SOW Paragraph 3.4.1.5 states that "Environmental covers shall be equipped with 'REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT' flags."

Q: Current sensor covers have "REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT" stamped on the cover. Please confirm that this is an acceptable alternative to a "flag."

The Government will consider modifying this requirement and will be finalized prior to the Final

SOW Paragraph 3.11.1.8

Q: Please clarify if the term "failure modes" means “pattern failures" or would include individual one-off type failures.

All failures regardless of frequency or patterns is included in "failure modes".

SOW Paragraph 3.11.1.9

Contractor interprets the phrase "the Contractor shall include all failures which occur at their suppliers in the contractor’s FRACAS system…" as encompassing only LRU failures.

Q: Is there any exclusion to this requirement for suppliers that assert commerciality or data rights?

No. This requirement is for the LRU level. There is no exclusion for suppliers that assert commerciality or data rights.

SOW Paragraph 3.11.2.1

SOW Paragraph 3.11.2.1 states that "Four (4) LIMWS (3 (three) for test, 1 (one) spare) will be utilized during RCT; a single spare system will be available to mitigate testing down time in the event of a failure."

Q: Please confirm that the four systems mentioned in this SOW Paragraph are included as part of the required 34 ship sets in CLIN 0002.

Yes. They are included in the CLIN 0002 deliverables.

SOW Paragraph 3.12.2

PRODUCT SUPPORT

STRATEGY CDRL A135

The ILSP referred to in the SOW and called out in DI-ILSS-80095 is an obsolete document.

Q: Please clarify if the USG would like an ILSP, or the more current Life Cycle Sustainment Plans

(LCSP)?

The offeror shall develop a Product Support Strategy IAW the CDRL referenced in the SOW.

SOW Paragraph 3.12.3

CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS

SUPPORT ANALYSIS/PLANS

AND WHITE PAPERS

Type and scope of analysis is not defined which leads to inconsistency in bidding this task. Only TCC is listed as a specific task (CDRL A137).

Q: Please clarify the type and scope of analysis required.

The offeror shall estimate 200 hours per each analysis plan and white paper. The Government will clarify SOW in the Final RFP.

SOW Paragraph 3.12.7.3

LEVEL OF REPAIR ANALYSIS

PLAN AND REPORT

Q: Please clarify if LORA needs to be conducted at both the LRU and SRU level?

Yes. LORA shall be conducted at both the LRU and SRU levels.

SOW Paragraph 3.12.7.3

LORA

Q: Does the USG require compliance with DA PAM 700-56 - this is an obsolete document.

DA PAM 700-127 superseded DA PAM 700-56 and should be used in its place. This will be updated in the SOW.

SOW paragraph 3.11.1.8 (Closed Loop Failure-Mode Mitigation)

Contractor interprets the definition of test in the SOW Paragraph 3.11.1.8 reference to "all failure modes arising from modeling, analysis, test, or the field…" is restricted to "formal test (RCT, ESS, ATP, QUAL, EMI, EMC, and Flight)."

Q: Please clarify if "test" refers to both informal and formal testing or is limited to formal testing only.

Test refers to both formal and informal testing.

SOW Paragraph 3.12.8.1

ENGINEERING DATA FOR

PROVISIONING

Requirement for a Provisioning Parts List (PPL) which usually accompanies the EDFP is not in the

SOW.

Q: Please clarify if the USG requires a PPL?

The Government requires a PPL and will be updated in the SOW for the Final RFP.

SOW Paragraph 3.12.8.2

PROVISIONING AND

PUBLICATIONS

Q: Please confirm that threat source data for technical manuals referenced in SOW Paragraph

3.12.8.2 is a request for source data in addition to support.

The offeror shall refer to 3.12.8.1 which calls out specs needed for EDFP in order to support Government development of TMs referenced in 3.12.8.2. TMs shall remain at the Unclassified level.

SOW and Listing of CDRLs in Attachment 0006

CDRLs A149 - A155 are defined in Attachment 0006, but are not mentioned in the SOW. Are those CDRLs required? If so, will these be incorporated into the SOW? Please provide the reference/document defining the requirement/effort.

All final CDRLs will be defined and incorporated into the Final RFP.

Section L

The volume numbers assigned to Past Performance and Cost/Price in Table 1 of Section L do not agree with the volume numbers provided/listed later in Section L. Please clarify the numbering of the volumes.

Volume III is the Cost/Price Volume. Volume IV is the Past Performance Volume. The Government will clarify in Section L of the Final RFP.

SOW Par. 3.4.7 and W58RX-17-R-0211 Section B, page 4

SOW paragraph 3.4.7 requests 4 + 4 A kits, but Section B CLIN 0001 identifies quantity 9 prototypes IAW SOW paragraph 3.4.7. Please clarify the number of A kits required.

Nine A-kits are required. The initial A-kit will be used for integration on the prototype aircraft. See Section 3.4.6 of the LIMWS SOW. USG will clarify in the Final RFP CLIN structure.

Section M, Page 4, par. C.

and W58RGZ-17-R-0211, Section B, CLIN 0001 and 0002 Perf Comp Date

Section M states, "Proposed dates should allow adequate time for Government testing beginning 12 months after contract award. Section states, Perf Comp Dates of 30-JUN-2018 for both CLINs 0001 and 0002. Please clarify first and last delivery dates for each CLIN.

The Government will provide a delivery schedule with the Final

SPS Par. 3.3.1.2.5

We request clarification regarding system power requirements with respect to 115 Voltage/28 V.D.C power. Is the requirement that the system must support both 115VAC and 28VDC, or either of the two?

The SPS will be clarified in the Final RFP.

SPS Par. 3.3.1.2.2

Requirement is to coast through 150 ms power loss. Is holding the system processor and communication interfaces to the aircraft sufficient with a quick sensor recovery, or does this include full performance with no degradation through the entire duration.

The requirement is to include full performance through 150 milliseconds power loss. The SPS in the Final RFP will be clarified.

PSAC and Section B, pg. 5, CLINS 0003 and 0004

Stephanie Polk indicated at the PSC that this was to be a five (5) year program with options exercised; however, CLINS 0003 and 0004 show a delivery end date of 1 Dec. 2023, making this a six

(6) year program from a 1 December 2017 start.

What is the duration of the program?

CLINS 0003 and 0004 have a delivery end date of 01-DEC-2022.

The 2023 date is a typo. USG will clarify in the Final RFP.

W58RGZ-17-R-0211 page 18 (iii) UID Req

RFP references "Subassemblies, components, and parts embedded within delivered items, items with warranty requirements, DoD serially managed reparable, and DoD serially managed non-reparable as specified in Attachment number

5. Attachment 5 is Section M. Please provide correct reference.

Final RFP will be updated with proper references.

W58RGZ-17-R-0211 page 18 (iv) UID Req

RFP references "special tooling or special test equipment as defined in FAR 2.101 that have been designated for preservation and storage for a Major Defense Acquisition Program as specified in Attachment 6. Attachment 6 is Document Summary List. Please provide correct reference.

Final RFP will be updated with proper references.

Attachment 0004 Section L page 9, Section 5. VOLUME

III – COST/PRICE, A (1)

and W58RGZ-17-R-0211, page 55, Item L-12, 252.215-7009 PROPOSAL

ADEQUACY CHECKLIST

Section L states that, "In accordance with FAR 15.402, 15.403-1 and 15.403(a) (1), certified cost or pricing data are not required," and also states, "The information submitted in this volume shall comply with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2." Also, Item L- 12 of W58RGZ-17-R-0211 states, "The offeror shall complete the following checklist, providing location of requested information, or an explanation of why the requested information is not provided" with reference to “The information submitted in this volume shall comply with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2.” The statements seem to conflict, since certified cost or pricing data is not required, yet FAR 15.408, Table 15-2 provides "Instructions for Submitting Cost/Price Proposals when Certified Cost or Pricing Data Are Required."

Please clarify whether offerors are to complete

Cost/Price certification is not anticipated at this time. This section will be updated in the Final RFP.

and provide the Proposal Adequacy Checklist at proposal submittal.