LCPM_Draft_RFP_Questions_and_Answers_9Jun2017.pdf

LCPM Draft RFP Q and A

Presolicitation Conference Questions Relates to: Answers i

LCPM applies only to existing sites. What is the mechanism to assure New sites follow the Hardware Product-Line direction set by LCPM?

The Government will not procure new systems or field existing systems to sites that are not currently instrumented under the LCPM contract vehicle.

Those requirements will be accomplished through separate acquisition. HPL language will be incorporated into future Statement of Works (SOWs) similar to the way the Government incorporated language into the IMTS DO 0002

SOW for the contractor to use LT2 software components, tools and processes to accomplish the requirements.

ii

In Section J, Attachment 14 is "Reserved." What can offerors expect to be included in Attachment 14? DRFP, Section J

In Section J, Attachment 14 was listed as "Reserved" in the Draft RFP as that attachment was deleted prior to release. Changed "Reserved" to "Deleted".

iii

The Gov't estimated ceiling is $465M over 5 years. What is the estimated breakdown between product and services over the 5 years or annually?

The preponderance of the work on this contract will be in support of

Continuous Technology Refresh (CTR), obsolescence and disposal of existing system, which represents the "product" type delivery orders, inclusive of the ancillary services to accomplish the requirements. The primary service component of the contract will be in support of the establishment, implementation and management of the HPL, which is covered under DO

0001.

iv

How would you characterize the hand-off of responsibilities between this program and ATMP (in the future) and CPM?

The Government expects close coordination between the ATMP/WFF/CPM and LCPM contractors in order to exchange sustainment data and information, ensure smoother transitions of programs to the sustainment contracts and support synchronization efforts across the contracts. The data hand off and interface requirements are defined in the LCPM SOWs.

Site Survey Questions (Ft Stewart CACTF and ASH) Answers v

Will ATMP be changing the hours of operation? Is it being operated/maintained half the time?

We are unaware of any changes to the current operating posture. Further answers need to be addressed by PEO STRI Field Ops.

vi When is the low period of training for CACTF?

November through January for Ft Stewart. Site coordination needs to be done for each site to determine when the CACTF/SH will be available for CTR.

vii Who uses the CACTF facility? All services and local law enforcement viii Are Dry Runs allowed?

Yes, training dry runs are allowed but no contractor operator support is required during training dry runs. (Question was asked during Site Visit at Ft

Stewart regarding Operator Support which is currently contracted under the

Warfighter Focus Contract.)

ix How many surges do you have a year?

Three, summer is the busiest for Ft Stewart. All sites vary depending on deployments and world circumstances.

x Any special requests for training?

There are no normal/standard training requests. There have been IEDs, Aircraft, Etc. If a plan is submitted in CONOPS and approved through range control it can be done at the CACTF.

xi Is the tunnel instrumented?

Not at Ft Stewart. Intent of this effort is to replace instrumentation at the site whether its in a building, control room or a tunnel based on the RFP.

xii

Any special Battlefield Effect Devices (eg. Motion sensors, paintball guns)? Yes. Requirements are detailed in the SOW/Spec.

xiii What is the largest sized unit to use the CACTF? Brigade xiv Are vehicles instrumented? No xv Is the current software CTIA compliant?

The software requirement for this contract is to utilize the IMTS LT2 software baseline which is stored on the LT2 repository and must be downloaded for use on these CTR efforts. The version on the portal is the latest and contains all of the LT2 software components needed for the IMTS. Additional software components may be needed to operate the LT2 software and those are documented on the IMTS' LT2 repository.

Draft Solicitation Questions Relates to: Answers

Section L.5.0 on page 58 of Draft Solicitation W900K-17-R-0023 states “PROPOSAL VOLUMES: The proposal must consist of

Volumes I through IV, as follows….” Correct to state Proposal must consist of Volumes I-V, not I-IV.

DRFP, Section

L.5.0, Page 58 Correct. The language has been updated and will be reflected in the final RFP.

What process will the Government use to evaluate the Pre-

Recorded Orals Package? Will the entire Pre-Recorded Orals be reviewed by the Source Selection Team or will SSEB members only watch specific sections?

Recommend the Source Selection Team view the entire orals package so that the solutions, themes and messages that are carried through the overall orals are heard by the entire team.

Draft RFP, Section

M General

The Government will evaluate the video presentations in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in Section M. The Technical and Management

Factor teams from the SSEB will view the entire Pre-recorded videos.

Section L.8.1 on page 65 of Draft Solicitation W900K-17-R-0023 states “...of the ID/IQ $465M total contract value (cumulative of all DOs) in the 12 month base period and each of the six 12 month options….” Please clarify if this paragraph should reflect four (4) 12 month options.

DRFP, Section

L.8.1, Page 65

The resultant contract will have a five year ordering period with no options.

This will be reflected in the final RFP. However, the paragraph/page number will differ due to other revisions made to the document.

Section M.4.1 on page 78 of Draft Solicitation W900K-17-R-0023 states “Proposals not meeting the required Small Business

Participation percentage goal of no less than 20-30%

(participation goal to be finalized prior to Final RFP) in the 12 month base period and each of the six 12 month options may be considered non-responsive.” Please clarify if this paragraph should reflect four (4) 12 month options.

DRFP, Section

M.4.1, Page 78

The resultant contract will have a five year ordering period with no options.

This will be reflected in the final RFP. However, the paragraph/page number will differ due to other revisions made to the document.

Section L.9.0 on page 67 of Draft Solicitation W900K-17-R-0023 states “Offerors shall submit a list of all

Government and commercial contracts (prime and major subcontractors, in performance or awarded, during the past 3 years), which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.” Can bidders submit Past Performance for specific products that are sold commercially and typically procured via

Purchase Orders instead of Contract? If so, how would bidders address the Past Performance requirements in Section L?

DRFP, Section

L.9.0, Page 67

In accordance with section L.9.0 of the solicitation the offeror shall submit contracts which are relevant in terms of magnitude, scope and complexity to the solicitation. Offeror's can submit any type of contract the offeror considers to be recent and relevant past performance.

Section M.6.3 on page 79 of Draft Solicitation W900K-17-R-0023 states that for Delivery Order 0002 (CLIN designated as FFP), the Government will evaluate the total evaluated price based upon the cumulative total of proposed pricing for each Firm Fixed Price CLIN within the delivery order.

It is assumed that cost data /information (estimating methodology, WBS, labor hours and rates, etc.) is not required for the FFP CLINs. Recommend Government limit cost date/information to CPFF CLINs only.

DRFP, Section

M.6.3, Page 79

The Government intends to request that offerors provide a breakdown of their

FFP to support a price reasonableness determination. The labor rates provided will be incorporated into Section B of the resultant contract. The Government will provide additional instructions and revisions to Attachment 7.4 Cost/Price

Workbook in the final RFP.

The second sentence reads: "The contractor shall produce a consolidated periodic maintenance manuals and interactive electronic indexed maintenance manuals that addresses all subsystems (e.g., servers, server racks, cable routing, cameras, target hardware, computer hardware)." Can the Government provide an explanation of what type of interactive indexing is required?

Attachment 7.1, Section 3.4.5, SOW: DO 0002, Pg

Government’s intent for interactive indexing is basically a linked table of contents. The user should be able to click on a heading/topic in the manual and automatically taken to that section.

Requirement (a) under Section 3.7 of the Attachment 7.2 IMTS

Specification states that “The system shall be designed to withstand the representative environment for its fielded location(s).” The current camera system doesn't appear to be designed to withstand ballistic impacts. Is this required for the CTR?

Attachment 7.2, Section 3.7, SPEC:

IMTS PRF-PT-668,

Pg 34

No. The system shall not be designed to withstand ballistic impacts. The environmental conditions section is intended to cover the weather environment not the tactical environment.

Section I on page 35 of Draft Solicitation W900K-17-R-0023 incorporates by reference DFARS Clause 252.204-

7012 – Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber

Incident Reporting (DEC 2015). Will the

Government please identify the Unclassified Technical

Controlled Information and Controlled Defense Information for

LCPM that is covered under Clause 252.204-7012?

DRFP, Section I –

Contract Clauses, Per DFAR 204.7304 this clause is required in all solicitations and contracts.

The Government has not identified "Covered Defense Information" that will be specifically identified in the LCPM contract or delivery orders, however in accordance with the clause it applies to "unclassified controlled technical information or other information" that is "collected, developed, received, transmitted, used, or stored by or on behalf of the contractor in support of the performance of the contract." Also listed in the clause is the Controlled

Unclassified Information (CUI) Registry at http://www.archives.gov/cui/registry/category-list.html

Request the Government provide the current TDP for the systems being delivered under the UOTS contract

(complete CACTF and ASH Technical Data Package including

Drawings, Bill of Materials, manuals, etc.). This data is required to price both DO 01 and DO 02.

DRFP, Sections A-

M, IMTS Spec

For DO 0001, the Government is not providing TDP information for its programs. For DO 0002, the existing UOTS data is not required. Site survey data is being provided for each site location identified in the SOW.

Section 3.2.7.4 of Attachment 7.1: Statement of Work for the

Continuous Technology Refreshment for the

Integrated-Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain Training

Systems, Delivery Order 0002 of Draft Solicitation W900K-17-R-

0023 states that "After successful completion of GAT, correction of all TIRs, delivery of a complete and accurate inventory, delivery of verified, validated, and corrected system level

Operator and Maintenance manuals, and system drawing, the

Government team shall provide a recommendation of the system’s acceptance.” Recommend changing the sentence to read "After successful completion of GAT, satisfactory resolution of all TIRs, delivery of a complete and accurate inventory, delivery of verified, validated, and corrected system level Operator and Maintenance manuals, and system drawing, the Government team shall provide a recommendation of the system’s acceptance.”

Attachment 7.1, Section 3.2.7.4, SOW: DO 0002, Pg

The Government will update the SOW for DO 0002 and provide as part of final

RFP

Is the contractor expected to provide 100% of the operation and maintenance of the system during the ICS period or will the

LCCS contractor continue to provide operational support of the range?

Attachment 7.1, Section 3.4.6(a), SOW: DO 0002, Pg

The LCPM contractor will not be required to provide operation and maintenance of the system during ICS. The sustainment contractor will continue to provide this service. ICS is being used to provide extra support of the system after GAT and NET since the design is new to the sustainment contractor.

Section L.5.0 on page 58-59 of Draft Solicitation W900K-17-R-

0023 states that the Video Presentation is due at the same time as the slides and written proposal. To accommodate the extra time required to produce a recorded orals presentation, will the Government allow the

Orals Presentation to be delivered two weeks after the submittal of the slides and written proposal? Recommend 45 days for proposal submission and two weeks additional for pre-recorded orals submission.

DRFP, Section

L.5.0, Page 58-59

The Government will allow two additional weeks for the submission of the video. The presentation slides will be delivered with the written volume. The instructions will be updated accordingly in the final RFP. The Government intends to allow approximately 30 working days for the submission of the written proposals.

For the Pre-Recorded Orals slides, can bidders provide slides where a single slide is "built" during the orals presentation but the final "built" slide is provided in the printed copy?

DRFP, Section

L.4.1, Page 57

Yes, bidders can provide slides that are built dynamically during the pre-recorded video. There is no need to provide build up slides for the printed copy. The final "built" slides are sufficient and will count towards the page limitation as set forth in the final RFP.

Section M.2.1, Subfactor 1.1: Hardware Product-Line

Implementation on Page 76 of Draft Solicitation W900K-

17-R-0023 doesn’t seem to evaluate the response to the theoretical scenario? Request the Government modify

M.2.1 to evaluate the hypothetical scenario.

DRFP, Section

M.2.1, Page 76

Section L has been updated for clarity. Sections L&M addresses what the contractor must submit and what the Government will evaluate. The additional information provided in Section L is provided to help offerors gain context for the particular factor/subfactor. It is up to the offeror to decide how to use that additional information in addressing Sections L&M.

Responses will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP (Section M).

Offeror requests the Government allow the workbook to be modified (i.e., add worksheets) to include more than one indirect rate structure, so as to accommodate on-site and offsite rates, for example. Attachment 6.3, Workbooks will be unprotected to allow additional worksheets as necessary.

Attachment 6.1, Section 2.3 - Other Government Documents, Drawings, and Publications references MIL-STD-31000A - TDP, but Attachment 1, Section 2.3 indicates MIL-STD-31000C - TDP.

Is MIL-STD-31000C the version to be applicable for all SOWs?

Attachment 6.1, Section 2.3

Correct, the MIL-STD is 31000C. The Government will update all documents to reflect this.

Is the contractor required to station staff at the Government

P/L facilities and labs and if so, will the Government provide designated work spaces and IDE computers?

Attachment 6.1, Section 3.2.8.2

No, at this time the Government does not have space in the IDE for the LCPM contractor.

On the CLIN 0001 FY18-19 tab, under Section 1.4 - System

Engineering, it appears Section 1.4.4 - Interoperability was deleted from the SOW, since SOW reference 3.4.4 in the workbook should be Product Definition Date (PDD). All remaining SOW references in this section of the workbook are off by one.

Attachment 6.3, Tab: CLIN 0001 FY

18-19, Section 1.4

Attachment 6.3, Tab CLIN 0001 FY18-19, under Section 1.4- System

Engineering: The Interoperability reference in the workbook, which was deleted from the SOW, has been corrected. The CLIN 0001 FY18-19 Tab and

Section 1.4.4 Tab have been updated accordingly. The table of contents of

Attachment 6.1 LCPM DO 0001 HPL SOW has also been updated. For the Final

RFP some of the Tabs will be renamed to align with Section B.

Section 1.4.10 of the workbook says “Information Assurance.”

Is this referring to Cybersecurity? Note, there are multiple discrepancies in the naming and numbering of IA and

Cybersecurity in the various SOWs. (E.g. the table of contents and the SOW text in the DO 001 SOW and the Cost Workbook.

Attachment 6.3, Tab: CLIN 0001 FY

18-19, Section 1.4

For the purpose of this solicitation, the terms "Information Assurance" and

"Cybersecurity" should be considered synonyms. The Government is in the transition to changing all Information Assurance items to Cybersecurity.

However there are several items that cannot be directly changed. For

Example: Legacy documents with IA in the title.

The Attachment 6.3 - LCPM HPL DO 0001 Cost/Price Workbook has CLINs 0001 through 0008, but Attachment 6.0 - Draft HPL

DO 0001 (RFP Section B) only has CLINs 0001 through 0006.

Please clarify. Attachment 6.3

Attachment 6.0 HPL DO 0001 Section B and Attachment 6.3 LCPM HPL DO

0001 Cost/Price Workbook have been updated. The CLIN numbering was updated in Attachment 6.0 and CLIN references in Attachment 6.3 have also been updated to match which will be provided in the Final RFP.

What is the required number of BES devices (Smoke, Smell, Motion Sensor, etc.) for each CACTF Upgrade site?

Attachment 7.2, Section 3.4.4

The Government will update the SOW for DO 0002 with the required quantities. The quantiles will be included in the SOW for the final RFP

In paragraph 3.1 h) and subsequent references, what does

"N/S" mean?

Attachment 7.2, Section 3.1, 3.2 &

3.4.4

N/S stands for Non Standard. It is used in the I-MTS performance specification to distinguish items that are Not required unless directed by the government.

It allows the spec to be used across multiple efforts without having to add and delete sections. For example, Bullet Traps. They will not be delivered on DO2 but if the program needed to field them they could use their existing spec.

A definition has already been added to the updated spec which will be published with the final RFP.

CLIN 0103 Delivery is listed as 3 months. Should this be changed to be consistent with the other CLINs (0101 through

0110)?

Attachment 7, Section F

8 months for first delivery of the ASH and then 6 months delivery after exercising the option for each ASH CLIN . 10 months for first delivery of the

CACTF and then 8 months delivery after exercising the option for each CACTF

CLIN. The delivery dates will be corrected in the final RFP.

Regarding the reference to Site Survey Inventory lists provided to the LT2 Portal, in a review of the Site Survey Data posted to the LT2 Portal in support of the proposal, the matrix below shows the sites with missing documentation. When will the missing documentation be provided?

Attachment 7.1, Section 3.1.5.3

All the data that is available to the Government from the Site Surveys will be posted on the LT2 Portal. The referenced table will also be updated with the most accurate information at the time of the RFP.

On the CLIN 0001 FY18-19 tab, under Section 1.3 - Hardware

Product Line Activities, it appears SOW reference 3.3.6 - LCPM

Prime and Subcontractor Equipment Manufacturing is missing and Section 3.3.6 -Technology Insertion/Refreshment Activity should be SOW reference 3.3.7. Please clarify.

Attachment 6.3, Tab: CLIN 0001 FY

18-19, Section 1.3

Attachment 6.3, Tab CLIN 0001 FY18-19, under Section 1.3- Hardware Product-line Activities has been updated to add SOW 3.3.3 - LCPM Prime and

Subcontractor Equipment Manufacturing and correct SOW reference for SOW

3.3.7 - Technology Insertion/Refreshment Activity. The table of contents of

Attachment 6.1 LCPM DO 0001 HPL SOW has also been updated. For the Final

RFP some of the Tabs will be renamed to align with Section B.

The requirement states, "Direct Rates – The offeror shall submit a projection of direct rates and current Forward Price Rate

Agreement (FPRA) or Forward Price Rate Recommendation

(FPRR), if a FPRA is not available." Is the term FPRR (referring to a DCAA-recommended rate) correct, versus the Contractor

Proposed Forward Pricing Rates (FPRP)?

DRFP, Section

L.10.2(8)(a) Yes, FPRR is referring to a DCAA/DCMA recommended rate.

The requirement states, "The video presentation will be considered in conjunction with the written proposal. The complete package including the video presentation and written proposal will be evaluated together, as a single submission, using the same evaluation factors and subfactors. " Would the

Government consider allowing the submittal of the video presentation approximately 2 weeks after the written proposal volumes are submitted? DRFP, Section L.2.1

The Government will allow two additional weeks for the submission of the video. The presentation slides will be delivered with the written volume. The instructions will be updated accordingly in the final RFP.

There appears to be a discrepancy between Section L Para

10.2.2 item 2) and the D002 Cost-price Workbook. Section L states, "…In all cases, documentation is required for each WBS element priced out." However, Attachment 7.4 - LCPM IMTS

DO 0002 Cost/Price Workbook has no provision to provide Base

Cost (Labor, Material, ODC, etc.) inputs.

DRFP, Section

L.10.2.2(2)

Attachment 7.4 LCPM IMTS DO 0002 Cost/Price Workbook has be updated to allow Base Cost (Labor, Material, ODC, etc.) inputs to support a price reasonableness determination. The labor rates provided will be incorporated into Section B of the resultant contract. The Government will provide additional instructions and revisions to Attachment 7.4 Cost/Price Workbook in the final RFP.

Regarding the reference to Site Survey Inventory lists provided to the LT2 Portal, during the site visit on 11 January 2017, newer illuminators were seen in the camera boxes at the Ft

Stewart CACTF and ASH that are not reflected in the Inventory list for the respective sites. Will current Legacy System

Hardware Inventory lists be provided for all sites?

Attachment 7.1, Section 3.1.5.3

The site information (site surveys and Equipment Inventory Records) to be published to the LT2 Portal will be accurate from the time that the surveys were conducted. Changes to the equipment may happen between the survey and the time of award. No other inventory data will be provided.

The requirement states, "This information shall be submitted utilizing the DO 0001 and DO 0002 cost/pricing workbooks, Attachments 6.3 and 7.4". May additional worksheets be added (hidden or unhidden) to Attachments 6.3 or 7.4?

DRFP, Section

L.10.2.2

Yes the Workbooks will be unprotected to allow additional worksheets as necessary.

On the CLIN 0001 FY18-19 tab, under Section 1.2 - Hardware

Product Line Capabilities, it appears SOW reference 3.2.1 - HPL

Analysis and Development is missing and all SOW references are off by one. Please clarify.

Attachment 6.3, Tab CLIN 0001

FY18-19, Section

1.2

Attachment 6.3, Tab CLIN 0001 FY18-19, under Section 1.2- Hardware Product

Line Capabilities has been updated to add SOW 3.2.1 - HPL Analysis and

Development and correct all other SOW references. The table of contents of

Attachment 6.1 LCPM DO 0001 HPL SOW has also been updated.

Should references throughout this section to "Product Line

Development" and "Product Line Management" be "Hardware

Product Line Development" and "Hardware Product Line

Management"? DRFP, Section L.9.0 No. The Government is looking for Product-Line Past Performance.

The delivery time frame for CACTF Option Sites is 5 months and the time frame for ASH Option Sites is 8 months. Should the

CACTFs be 8 months and ASHs 5 months?

Attachment 7, Section F

Attachment 7.0 IMTS DO 0002 has been updated with the correct delivery times in section F. 8 months for first delivery of the ASH and then 6 months delivery after exercising the option for each ASH CLIN . 10 months for first delivery of the CACTF and then 8 months delivery after exercising the option for each CACTF CLIN. The delivery dates will be corrected in the final RFP.

What is the required number of Targetry devices (HTT, SIT, MILES, etc.) for each ASH and CACTF Upgrade site?

Attachment 7.2, Section 3.4.5

The Government will identify the quantities of the targets and target devices in the updated SOW for DO 00002. The updated SOW will be included in the final RFP.

Draft Solicitation Amendment 1 Questions

In order to provide a high-quality video that will fit onto a single disc for the convenience of the Government evaluators, we plan to provide the video in .mp4 format using h.264 encoding on a

DVD+ single-layer disc. Please confirm if this format is acceptable and compatible with the intended media player and playback equipment.

DRFP Amend 1, Section L.2.3 Yes

There are requirements in the IMTS specification that cannot be met with the current UrbanOz software, including paragraphs

3.7.1 items p, q, and r (Video Processing); 3.7.5 (BES error reporting); 3.7.6.1 e, g, and p (mortal HTT HTK); 3.9 i, o, p, and q (SW errors/handling); 3.9 z, aa, bb, cc, dd (usage statistics of edge devices); 3.9 ee (laptop/tablet system control); 3.9.3 pp, qq, rr, and ss (camera auto focus, WDR); 3.24.2 g, i, j, k, and l

(ASH instructional video); 3.24.2 t (switch between camera layouts); 3.24.2.4 dd, ee, ff (clearing of exercises from podium);

3.24.2.8 d, (THP copy); and 3.24.2.4 i and j (THP burn time take into account HD video streams).

Who is responsible for upgrading the UrbanOz software to meet the IMTS specification?

Attachment 7.2, Section 3.7, 3.9, 3.24, SPEC: IMTS

DO 0002

The SOW has been changed to reflect that the LCPM is not responsible for updating the software under this contract at the time of award. The CPM Next contractor is performing the upgrades to the software to add those capabilities. The LCPM contractor will have to analyze the software on the LT2 portal at the time of award to determine if it meets the requirements. If it does not, then the LCPM is required to submit a change proposal into the LT2 portal to have the change addressed. The Government, based on the change proposal, will determine which contract the work is performed under.

The various elements of the Cost-Price workbook appear to be inconsistent regarding the period of performance. The

Instructions tab (row 12 in the Excel file) says 4 years. The

Rates & Categories tab (row 5 in the Excel file) says 5 years. The

CLIN summary tabs only cover 3 years. The detailed WBS workbook sheets only cover FY18 and FY19. Also, Attachment

6.0 (Draft_HPL_DO_0001) has three CLINs covering 4 years.

Please clarify.

Attachment 6.3 &

6.0, Section ALL

Attachments 6.3 and 6.0 have been updated for consistency. DO 0001 will now contain a 1 year base period with four, 1 year option periods.

The SOW references in the WBS 1.2 table do not align with the current version of the LCPM SOW (Attachment 6.1, LCPM_DO_0001_HPL_SOW_14Mar2017). Further, WBS 1.4.10 references SOW 3.4.10, but there is no paragraph 3.4.10 in the

SOW. Please clarify.

Attachment 6.3, Section 1.2, 1.4

Attachment 6.3 has been updated to track with the current version of the

LCPM SOW, Attachment 6.1.

Since prospective offerors may not have a current Forward

Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR) or Forward Pricing Rate

Agreement (FPRA), we request clarification in the RFP in Section

L.11.2.2 item 7)a) that a current Forward Pricing Rate Proposal

(FPRP) can be accepted to satisfy Section L.11.2.2 items 7)b)i) and c).

DRFP Amend 1, Section L.11.2.2

A current Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP) is not acceptable, if an offeror does not have an FPRA or FPRR then in accordance with section L they should submit historical data so that the Government can verify the proposed rate information.

We request the Government delete the set fee for cost plus fixed fee (CPFF) and fixed price (FP) delivery orders. Some of the future DOs could have very different risk profiles, which would justify different fees per the Government’s Weighted

Guidelines.

DRFP Amend 1, Section B.3

Non-concur. The preponderance of the work to be performed on this contract deals with CTRs of existing systems and is similar to work that has been performed in the past. The technical risk for DO 2 will be similar to the risk on future DOs.

We request the Government remove the table and language that defines the streamlined ordering process schedule. This table and following language establishes expectations for the contractor and Government to comply with and presents risk to each party. Delivery Orders inherently vary in size and complexity, hence proposal response time will vary based on proposal size and complexity. Attachment 16

The table provides an estimate for planning turnaround times for future delivery order actions. Table has been updated in Attachment 16

We note that a number of questions previously submitted regarding the first draft of the RFP have not been answered in the Draft 2 updates, including LM-3 and LM-10 which impact costing for DO 0001 and DO 0002. General Answers to previously submitted questions have now been provided.

In the Section F Delivery Information table, CLINs 1101 through

1402 show a delivery date of 3 months after exercise of option.

Since these are options as opposed to committed orders, this may not provide sufficient time to acquire longer-lead items such as cameras. We recommend revising these delivery dates to 5 months consistent with option CLINs 1001 and 1002.

Attachment 7.0, Section F

8 months for first delivery of the ASH and then 6 months delivery after exercising the option for each ASH CLIN . 10 months for first delivery of the

CACTF and then 8 months delivery after exercising the option for each CACTF

CLIN. The delivery dates will be corrected in the final RFP.

Please confirm if items under H.12 ORGANIZATIONAL

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST(e) will be selected, or the clause removed in the final RFP.

DRFP Amend 1, Section H Section H.12 has been updated and will be reflected in the final RFP.

Request the Government provide the CDRL Annexes A, B and C for LPD Data, Drawings and Technical Manuals.

Attachment 6.2, CDRLs CDRLs have been updated to include Annexes

Delivery Information shows CLIN 0001 to be 2 years ACA and

CLIN 1001 to be 1 year AEO and CLIN 2001 to be 1 year after

AEO.

These PoP and delivery dates do not line up with Attachment

6.3 - Cost Price Workbook. Attachment 6.3 shows CLIN 0001 as

FY 18-19, CLIN 1001 as FY 19-20, and CLIN 2001 as FY 20-21.

Please clarify.

DRFP Amend 1, Section F Attachment 6.3 has been updated for consistency

Direct Labor Rates and Indirect Costs - both paragraphs requests support for rates preferring either and FPRA or and

FPRR. Absent either of these, Offeror's are to provide supporting rate information.

Request Government add FPRP (Forward Pricing Rate

Proposals) to also satisfy the requirements for rate support information.

DRFP Amend 1, L.11.2.2(7)(a)&(c

A current Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP) is not acceptable, if an offeror does not have an FPRA or FPRR then in accordance with section L they should submit historical data so that the Government can verify the proposed rate information.

Section L2 states that the IMS is excluded from the 75-slide limit of the presentation, but IMS limits are not mentioned for the other parts of Volume I. Please confirm that both the DO 0001 and DO 0002 IMSs are excluded from the page count limitations of Volume 1.

DRFP Amend 1, Section L IMS page counts are excluded from the limits

The Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) CDRLs

(A002 and A003) for DO01 and DO02 reference a deliverable defined in DI-MGMT-81861A which is to be tailored to Format

6. The CDRLs specify one-time delivery with updates as required for BCRs or ECPs. However, the referenced DID 2.5.1

Monthly Submission requirement states that the IPMR formats

1-6 shall be required at least monthly. Please confirm that the

Government only requires the one-time delivery with updates as required by BCRs or ECPs as specified in the CDRLs A002 and

A003

DRFP Amend 1, IMPR CDRL for DO

01 and DO 02

The CDRL requirement for a one time submission is correct. The Government does not need the same IMS submitted if there are no changes to it. Any changes to the IMS will be captured through the BCR and ECP processes