ATTACHMENT_17_MISTE_SOLICITATION_QUESTIONS-COMMENTS_FORM_FINAL_ANSWERS_5-22-2019.pdf

RFP Doc Referenced Location Industry Question Industry Concern Industry Recommendation Government Response

Responses on Draft RFP Question 59

Answer to Question 59 on the Draft RFP stated that Form 1423 was required for each CDRL included in the TISE/PM SOW. Given the standard format of the Form 1423, this could require substantial page count. For example, if an Offeror had 20 CDRLS for it's TISE/PM solution, the 1423 forms could take 40 of the 60 pages allocated to this subfactor. Recommend the Government allow these Form 1423's to be excluded from the page count.

Ensuring a proper page allocation to the description of the TISE/PM solution while allowing sufficient detail to describe the

CDRLS.

Exclude Form 1423 from Subfactor 1.2 page count.

The Offeror should propose a list of the Data Item Descriptions that they believe apply to the TISE/PM solution. DD 1423's do not need to be completed at this time except for the those specifically (e.g., DI-QCIC-81722, DI-MGMT-82228) identified in Section L. For the DD 1423's that requires submission with the proposal, they will be excluded in the page count.

RFPW900KK-19-R-0006

Page 122, L.1.2.4,and Page 136, M.1.2.4

L.1.2.4 states "This proposal submission shall include the Offeror's proposed Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) per DI-MGMT-82228, Contractor's Data Management Plan (CDMP)." Section M.1.2.4 states "The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror's proposed Contractor's Data Management Plan (CDMP) CDRL DI-MGMT-82228 is thoroughly documented, executable, efficient, and intuitive from a user perspective and ensures the Government will fully achieve the intended purposes and objectives for establishing the TISE."

1.) Is the Government's intent for the Offeror to submit a list of CDRLs to satisfy this requirement, or is the Government intent for the Offeror's to submit a complete CDMP with all the sections specified in section 3.4 of DI-MGMT-82228?

2.) If the Government is requiring a submission of a complete CDMP, request that this document is excluded from the Page Count.

Do not include the CDMP in the Page count

1. The Offeror should propose a list of the Data Item Descriptions that they believe apply to the TISE/PM solution. DD 1423's do not need to be completed at this time except for the one specifically (DI-MGMT-82228) identified in Section L.

2. For the DD 1423 that requires submission with the proposal, it will be excluded in the page count.

RFPW900KK-19-R-0006 page 124, L.3.2.e

While an Offeror can commit to the overall Socioeconomic goals across the life of the contract, without an accurate representation of the Delivery Orders expected over the 10 year PoP, it is unlikely an Offeror could accurately estimate the annual LB and SB work requirements. Request the Government eliminate the requirements to estimate this information by company and by year in the L.3.2.d and L.3.2.e tables and just provide an commitment to the Socioeconomic goals over the life of the contract.

Offeror's will not be able to specifically propose %'s at the Socioeconomic category for each company and each year without a representative sample of Delivery Orders.

Bind offerors commitment to the Socioeconomic goals over the life of the contract.

Section L3.2e was updated. Offeror shall identify anticipated subcontractors including the socioeconomic categories which are capable of fulfilling the scope of the MISTE Base contract requirements. The requirement for SB goal is 20% overall year-to-year.

Attachment_20_MISTE_DO_TISE_C LIN_Structure_Final

The CLIN structure for the TISE/PM DO has CLINs for 000X, 100X (Option 1), 200X (Option 2), 300X (Option 3), 400X (Option 4).

Does the CLIN structure for the TISE/PM DO ( 000X, 100X, 200X, 300X, 400X) correspond to the Base 5 year period of the IDIQ - i.e., is the PoP for each CLIN one year?

It is unclear how the Base and 4 option periods map to the 10-year PoP.

It is the Government's intention to issue the order with award of the MISTE base contract for 5 years of TISE and Program Management. Each TISE/PM CLIN represents a 12 month period of performance. RFP updated.

RFPW900KK-19-R-0006

Page 129-130, L.4.7, Attachment E, F, G, Item i.

The requirements for attachments E, F, and G imply the Direct Labor for the Delivery Orders must be proposed using the applicable rate caps from attachment 14 without adjustment. Please clarify if offerors can price the Delivery Orders using discounted FFP and CPFF rates that do not exceed the CAP .

Ensuring pricing constraints are clear to all Offeror's.

Add verbiage in Item i) of Attachment E, F, and G to allow or disallow discounting on the Direct Labor FFP and CPFF Rate CAPs.

Yes, the Offeror's proposed labor rates for the delivery orders shall not exceed the Rate Caps in Attachment 14.

RFPW900KK-19-R-0006,

Attachment_19_MISTE_DO_SCETI-

ACE_CLIN_Structure_R1_Final

Page 130, L.4.7 Attachment F, and Attachment 19

L.4.7, Attachment F states that the Delivery Order for SCETI ACE is Firm Fixed Price. The Attachment 19 CLIN Descriptions state the CLINs are CPFF. Please confirm SCETI ACE is to be bid as CPFF.

This is an administrative error. SCETI ACE is to be proposed as CPFF. The RFP will be amended accordingly.

W900KK-19-R-0006.pdf Pg 114, Para L.A.1.c

May the offeror include in each volume a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms that will be excluded from page count?

Instruction calls for table of contents and cross-reference matrix but doesn't mention acronym list.

For each volume: "Volume shall include a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, which is excluded from page count."

No, Glossaries and Acronym Lists will not be excluded from the page count.

RFPW900KK-19-R-0006

and

ATTACHMENT_20_MISTE_DO_TIS

E_CLIN_STUCTURE_FINAL.pdf page 130, L.4.7 Pricing Workbook and Cost Breakdown Workbook

ATTACHMENT E states the Offeror shall submit a proposed CLIN structure for this DO Section B. The Government also provided the TISE/PM CLIN structure in Attachment 20. Please confirm the Offeror use the CLIN structure provided in Attachment 20 as the CLIN Structure for the TISE/PM DO.

Yes, Offerors shall use the CLIN structure provided in Attachment 20 as the structure for the TISE/PM DO. Updated

RFP.

Attachment_18_MISTE_DO_TNM-

EPG_CLIN_STRUCTURE

The first three TNM CLINs (0001, 0002, 0003) indicate delivery dates within 12 months after award. Can the Offeror propose delivery dates for these CLINs that align to completion of activities in its IMS?

Updated CLINs delivery dates. Updated RFP.

RFPW900KK-19-R-0006 Page 130, L.4.7 If offerors are permitted to use discounted CAP rates in pricing the Delivery Orders, how will the Government evaluate the reasonableness of the rates proposed?

The Offeror's proposed labor rates are to be evaluated IAW Sections M4.3 and M4.4.

ATTACHMENT_06_MISTE_DO_SC

ETI_ACE_SOW_FINAL

page 5, Figure 3.1.1-1

The SCETI ACE Current project schedule in Figure 3.1.1-1 of the SCETI SOW indicates 30 months from DO Award to completion. The CLIN structure for SCETI in Attachment 19 indicates all CLINs completed by 24 months of DO Award. Please confirm if the PoP for SCETI is 24 months or 30 months.

The Government will update the CLIN structure to be consistent with the DO SOW. (SCETI program team concurs) Total PoP is 30 months.

RFPW900KK-19-R-0006

Pg 129-130

Section L.4.7, Attachment 14

The tabs in Attachment 14 appear to provide the same information as required in Attachment A and Attachment B in Section L.4.7. Are Offerors required to submit Attachment 14 along with Attachment A and B?

Clarify any overlapping requirements between Attachment 14 and Attachments A-B.

Yes Offeror's required submittal ATTACHMENTS "A". "B", and "C" are derived from RFP Attachment 14

RFPW900KK-19-R-0006

Pg 129-130

Section L.4.7, Attachment 14

Is the information in Attachment A in Section L..4.7 a duplicate of the information in the Year Tabs in Attachment 14 or is there additional information the Government is seeking?

No, the Government is not seeking additional information.

Offeror's required submittal ATTACHMENTS "A". "B", and "C" are derived from RFP Attachment 14

RFPW900KK-19-R-0006

Pg 129-130

Section L.4.7, Attachment 14

Is Attachment B in Section L..4.7 a duplicate of the information in the Rate Build-Up CPPF and Rate Build-Up FFP Tabs in Attachment 14 or is there additional information the Government is seeking?

No, the Government is not seeking additional information.

Offeror's required submittal ATTACHMENTS "A". "B", and "C" are derived from RFP Attachment 15

RFPW900KK-19-R-0006

Pg 129-130

Section L.4.7, Attachment 14

Is Attachment C in Section L..4.7 a duplicate of the information in the Indirect Rates by Year Tab in Attachment 14 or is there additional information the Government is seeking?

No, the Government is not seeking additional information.

Offeror's required submittal ATTACHMENTS "A". "B", and "C" are derived from RFP Attachment 15

Attachment_14_MISTE

VOL_IV_COST_AND_PRICE_BASE

LINE_XLS_WORKBOOK

Attachment 14, Instructions and

Notes tab, 7)

May offerors address the requirement to include "Basis of Estimate (BOE) for the direct labor rates and burdens, such as Labor and Indirect Rate Actuals verifiable through DCAA, Negotiated FPRA through DCMA, salary estimates…", within the narrative portion of the COST/PRICE Volume instead of the Attachment 14 spreadsheet?

Keeping supporting documentation in one area of the Cost/Price volume.

Please verify the information can be provided into the cost narrative of the Cost/Price Volume

No, Offeror's shall complete the Attachment 14 tabs but may also include the supporting data in the Cost/Price Volume narrative.

Attachment_14_MISTE

VOL_IV_COST_AND_PRICE_BASE

LINE_XLS_WORKBOOK

Please confirm that the attachment 14 proposed direct labor rates are applicable to the prime and all subcontractors and should reflect the prime's incorporation of subcontractor pricing in the development of a single rate ceiling for their team.

Yes, the attachment 14 proposed direct labor rates are applicable to the prime and all subcontractors. Prime contractor shall identify all indirect charges in accordance with Volume IV instructions.

Attachment_14_MISTE

VOL_IV_COST_AND_PRICE_BASE

LINE_XLS_WORKBOOK

Please confirm that subcontractors’ rates need only be identified if the prime is proposing a subcontractor’s rate for a labor category.

Yes, the Prime need only identified where the Prime is proposing subcontractors. The attachment 14 proposed direct labor rates are applicable to the prime and all subcontractors.

RFPW900KK-19-R-0006 Page 114, L.1.c For Volume I, please confirm that the Cross Reference Matrix may be up to 10 pages and the Executive Summary and Table of Contents has no page limit for this volume.

In accordance with Section L.1.c Executive Summary, Table of Contents (TOC), and Cross Reference Matrix are limited to 10 pages total and these pages are excluded from the volume page count. Updated the RFP

ATTACHMENT_15_TECHNICAL_V

OLUME_CROSS_REFERENCE_MA

TRIX

Is the Offeror permitted to add rows to this matrix to further decompose the Section L and M requirements or does the Government desire the traceability to remain at the current levels in the Attachment 15 matrix?

No, in order to ensure consistency in proposal submission, Offeror's shall use Attachment 15 without modification

RFPW900KK-19-R-0006 L.1.c

The formatting of excel spreadsheets for hardcopy review often results in excessive pages being delivered to the Customer.

1.) Recommend the Government only require the electronic copy of the financial exhibits in Volume 4.

2.) If hardcopy is required, recommend the Government remove the font and format requirements for the financial exhibits and require that all information in hardcopy shall be easily legible.

Submission of excessive hardcopy will hamper the Government's ability to easily review the financial exhibits

Update L.1.c to remove Hardcopy requirements for financial exhibits or add the following sentence to L.1.b "The font and format requirements do not apply to financial exhibits in Volume 4, but all information provided in hard copy shall be easily legible."

Government agrees with removing hard copy requirements. RFP updated.

RFPW900KK-19-R-0006 L.2.4

Section L.2.4 states "Past Performance reference data concerning the offeror shall be provided first, followed by proposed major subcontractors, in alphabetical order."

Please confirm that the reference to alphabetical order is in reference to the Major Teammates.

There is uncertainty if the reference to alphabetical order pertains the order of the Major Teammates or the order of the contracts referenced.

The reference to alphabetical order pertains to major subcontractors.

ATTACHMENT_32_MISTE_DO_SC

ETI_DVE_FOGTAXONOMY_FINAL_

REPORT_AQRSC

Appendix A

How is frequency defined in the Appendix A charts? We noted frequency often exceeds the number of days in a month. For example Fort Washington indicates over 90 occurrences in July/August; is one fog event counted twice if it spans midnight?

Appendix A describes frequencies as occurrence by month. Use number of occurrences in the taxonomy study if relevant to the design of your system.

ATTACHMENT_32_MISTE_DO_SC

ETI_DVE_FOGTAXONOMY_FINAL_

REPORT_AQRSC

Can the Government provide the referenced workbook (Fog_climatologies_v2.xlsx) used by AQRSC for their analysis?

NO, the Government does not have the "Fog_climatologies_v2.xlsx" to provide. The graphs provided in Appendix A, reflect the data in the Fog_climatologies_v2.xlsx as stated in the report.

Attachment 12 MISTE DO TNM EPG

CDRL REPORT FINAL CDRL A002, IPMR

Based on the anticipated value of the TNM Delivery Order, can the Offeror propose a tailored EVM approach for the Integrated Program Management Report CDRL using Format 6 only.

Ensuring the proper level of EVM reporting based on the overall value of the TNM Delivery Order.

Modify the contents of the Integrated Program Management Report to include only Format 6 in response to the tailored EVM approach requirement in the TNM Delivery Order SOW.

Yes, Offeror can propose a tailored EVM approach IAW CDRL A002, Integrated Program Management Report and TNM EPG SOW Section 3.2.2.

Attachment 20 - TISE/PM CLINs ALL CLIN structure for TISE/PM shows Unit as "Month" and Qty as 1. Unclear how to price this D.O. If Offeror's are to provide a monthly cost, then the qty of 1 does not make sense. If Offeror's are to price the entire TISE/PM efforts for the respective CLIN period, then the unit of "Month" does not make sense.

Ability to properly/adequately show pricing by CLIN for the TISE/PM efforts

Either change "Month" to "Lot" or change qty to equal the number of months for each CLIN.

RFP Updated, quantity changed to 12.

RFP Section L, Vol V, Section D (iii) Page 133 of 144 Our interpretation is that PM and Administrative Support is only bid for the base period (5 years) and not any of the Option CLINs based upon the phrasing in the Reference.

Ability to properly/adequately bid the TISE/PM efforts.

Clarify which TISE DO CLINs are required to be proposed per Attachment RFP Attachment 22, MISTE DO TISE CLIN Structure. Recommend adding specific language to RFP Section L.4.7, Attachment E, Page 130, requiring Offerors to Bid against Attachment 20 CLIN Structure for the Base Contract only, CLINs 0001 to 0007. Change all TISE DO CLINs to RESERVED.

All TISE DO CLINs are required to be proposed per RFP Attachment 20. Attachment 22 is the Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System which is not related to the TISE. Updated RFP.

RFP Section L, Factor 1 - Technical Volume, Subfactor 1.2, Section L.1.2.1

Page 120 of 144 Offeror's are to present their planned program management approach to address an expected volume of no less than 3 delivery orders. Are offeror's to assume 3 delivery orders in the pricing of the TISE/PM D.O. for the Base Period?

Ability to properly/adequately bid the TISE/PM efforts

Confirm/clarify the PM efforts to be included in the TISE/PM Delivery order pricing. Recommend adding specific language to RFP Section L.4.7, Attachment E, Page 130, requiring Offerors to Bid an expected volume of 3 delivery orders.

Yes, IAW Section L.1.2.2 Program Management: The offeror shall present their planned program management approach to address an expected volume of no less than 3 delivery orders.

IAW Section L.4.6. Offerors shall ensure that the information presented in the Cost/Price Volume is consistent and correlates with the information contained in the other proposal volumes.

RFP Section L, Factor 4 - Cost/Price Volume, Section L.4.7 Pricing Workbook, Attachment E - TISE and

PM DO

Page 130 of 144 Referenced section specifies for the Offeror to submit a proposed CLIN structure for the TISE and PM DO. But, RFP provides Attachment 20, MISTE TISE DO CLIN structure.

Ability to properly/adequately bid the TISE/PM efforts

Recommend changing referenced section to specify usage of Attachment 20 for bidding TISE and PM DO and delete language requiring offerors to propose CLIN Structure.

The Government updated the language in the RFP. The Offeror shall populate the Attachment 20 CLIN structure with their proposed pricing.

RFP Section L, Factor 4 - Cost/Price Volume, Section L.4.7 Pricing Workbook and Cost Breakdown Workbook

Page 129 of 144 Is Attachment 14 is required to be submitted as Attachment

A-COSTANDPRICEXLS?

Compliance to RFP requirements Clarify the Attachment 14 filename and submittal as Attachment A of the Cost/Price Volume.

Yes Offeror's required submittal ATTACHMENTS "A" is RFP Attachment 14

Attachment 14 Material, ODC, Travel

Instruction tab, item #8 states that "For Government purposes, a 1% ODC and Travel escalation has been included in the ODC calculation for out years. No escalation has been applied to Materials". The actual formulas in the workbook show a 1% escalation has been included for Materials and Travel, and no escalation has been applied to ODC.

Discrepancy between instructions and formula

Change instruction verbiage to reflect worksheet formulas or change Attachment 14 formulas to reflect instructions.

These numbers are based on Government estimates. Offeror's are not to change the ODC, Travel, or Material numbers established in Attachment 14. Instruction 8 changed to read:

Within this XLS workbook, the Offeror shall populate the worksheet/tab to provide all indirect rates/burdens applied to Materials, ODCs and Travel. Travel is non-profit/fee bearing.

Material costs are profit/fee bearing and shall be proposed as a fixed percentage for each year. Not to exceed amounts are provided on the Year 1 through Year 10 tabs and are not to be modified.

Attachment 14 Material, ODC, Travel

Instruction tab, item #8 states that "Within this XLS workbook, the Offeror shall populate the worksheet/tab to provide all indirect rates/burdens applied to Materials, ODC's and Travel". Is the tab referred to in this statement the "Indirect Rates by Year" tab?

Ensure consistency among Offerors in bidding ODC, Material and Travel

Confirm/clarify the instructions in Cost Workbook. Yes, the Section J Attachment 14 tab for identification of Indirect Rates by Year should be populated.

Attachment 14 ALL Attachment 14, allows for the input of rates for year 1 with an ability to escalate the years for years 2 - 10. If Offeror's year 1 reflects Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations and/or Forward Pricing Rate Agreements, the use of an escalation for future years may cause these rates to no longer reflect the FPRR or the FPRA.

Ability to bid actual FPRR and/or FPRA rates for years beyond Year 1

Allow bidders to use FPRA/FPRR rates as applicable in lieu of applying a standard escalation rate.

The Offeror should annotate the basis for estimating their proposed rate CAPs, per Section L, Volume IV instructions. If an FPRA or FPRR is the basis for your entire labor proposal for 10 years then you should annotate that escalation is included in these rates and not proposed separately. This, however, does not alleviate the Offeror from identifying the escalation built into those rates as well as indirect rates and fee/profit applied.

Attachment 06 - SCETI SOW and Attachment 19 SCETI CLINs

Page 5 of SOW Attachment 19 shows CLIN 0001 Atmospheric Condition Parameter Study is due six (6) months after delivery order (DO) award and CLINs 002 - 005 - the Capabilities are due twenty-four (24) months after delivery order (DO) award.

The schedule shown on Page 5 of the SOW for the SCETI effort is 30 months. There is a discrepancy between these two documents. Please clarify.

Ability to meet Government required delivery dates/schedule

Either change CLINs 0002 - 0005 in Attachment 19 to reflect thirty (30) months after delivery order (DO) award or change schedule on Page 5 of Attachment 6 to reflect a 24 month schedule.

CLIN structure updated to be consistent with the DO SOW.

Total PoP is 30 months.

RFP 115 Volume V has two Section G Please change the second Section G to Section H RFP updated

RFP 123, Section 3 The New Corporate Entity section has a requirement to provide joint venture (JV) documentation

Providing duplicate information. Recommend clarification that the JV requirement is only for new entities. JV documentation is also required in Volume V Section F

Copy of JV agreements are required in two separate Volumes.

JV requirements from Volumes II and V are not only for new entities.

1) RFP

2)Attachment 19 - SCETI CLIN Structure

1) Volume IV Attachment F page

2) All CLINs

The Final RFP SCETI CLIN Structure changed the CLIN Structure from FFP to CPFF and Cost Reimbursable, but the Cost Volume Attachment F still says FFP.

The SCETI SOW changes demonstrate a less mature capability than the DRFP had indicated. This less mature capability is consistent with a CPFF CLIN structure vs

FFP

Recommend changing all references to SCETI to CPFF or Cost as appropriate to reflect the relative maturity of the solution for consistency with the SCETI CLIN structure Attachment 19

RFP updated. SCETI ACE is to be proposed as CPFF.

MISTE RFP L.1.2.1 L.1.2.1 states, "The offeror shall propose a MISTE TISE concept of operations that complies with the MISTE Base SOW Sections 1.3 and 3.0 (including sub-sections)." 1.3 is a background paragraph and does not include any SHALL statements. Also, there is a paragraph 3 but not 3.0. Did the Government intend the concept of operation will comply with the entire MISTE Base SOW 3 through 3.11?

Clarification Recommend clarifying L.1.2.1 to specify which parts of the Base SOW requirements are to be addressed in the concept of operation.

RFP updated to read- "The offeror shall propose a MISTE TISE concept of operations that is consistent with the MISTE Base SOW Section 1.3 and complies with MISTE Base SOW Section 3 (including sub-sections)."

MISTE RFP M.1.1 The RFP does not specify that the evaluated manufacturing capability is at the Prime level.

Lack of organic capabilities at the prime level could add risk to the Government's solution.

Specify in M.1.1, M.1.1.1, and M.1.1.2 the extent to which the Offeror's manufacturing capabilities at the prime level are adequate and suitable.

The Government will evaluate "Manufacturing Capability" IAW Section M.1.1 and subparagraphs.

ATTACHMENT_12_MISTE__DO_TN

M_EPG_CDRL_REPORT_FINAL -

Copy

Throughout Document

Throughout the document delivery time frames are listed as "Work Days", "Calendar Days", or just "Days". Can you clarify to ensure items listed in terms of "Days" are reflected as "Calendar" or "Work" Days?

Concern is that lack of clarification can lead to significant discrepancies in planning project schedules.

Standardize CDRLS to ensure one standard is followed. Offeror's are required to comply with the delivery schedules as specified in the SOW's, CDRLs, and RFP.

Attachment_18_MISTE_DO_TNM- EPG_CLIN_Structure_R1_Final

Page 2, Item No

Under Item No. 3, Network Testing Phase it states "Deliver date four (4) months after award". Is it the Governments intent for the contractor to complete testing prior to completion of the engineering and installation phase of this award?

Incorrect delivery date was provided Correct delivery date to be four months after completion of CLIN 0002 (Hardware/Material)

RFP Updated. Government concurs with recommendation for correction.

Final_RFP_W900KK-19-R-0006.pdf Page 131 Item i) Item i) for the TNM delivery order requires a breakdown to demonstrate use of "Direct Labor CPFF Rate CAP (from RFP Attachment 14)

Delivery order pricing may necessitate the use of rates less than that of the caps, which would not demonstrate a usage of the cap rate.

Clarify if offerors can bid rates lower than the Capped Rates provided in Attachment 14 for DO 01, 02 and 03 pricing.

Offeror's proposed labor rates for the delivery orders shall not exceed the Rate Caps in Attachment 14.

Section L, Paragraph 2.k Page 119, Technical Volume Cross Reference

Matrix

Paragraph 2.k clearly requires the submission of a completed Section J Attachment 15 “Technical Volume Cross Reference Matrix.” This is fully understood.

However, the second sentence states Attachment 15 must be accompanied by a “single integrated index for the entire Technical proposal.”

We do not understand what the Government wants included in the second index that would not be included in a completed Attachment 15. Both documents should contain the same material.

Delete the requirement for a “single integrated index for the entire Technical Proposal;” or please explain what the Government is expecting to see in this index that is beyond the contents of a completed Attachment 15.

Deleted, “single integrated index for the entire Technical Proposal;”, in updated RFP.

Section L, Paragraphs 2.c and 2.k Page 114 Proposal Contents and Page Limitations Table, and Page 119, Technical Volume Cross Reference

Matrix

The Page Limitation table on Page 114 requests a Cross Reference Matrix of up to 10 pages. Paragraph 2.k on Page 119 requires completion of Section J Attachment 15.

This attachment prints out at 11 pages if we do not reconfigure the document as it appears in the RFP.

Paragraph 2.k goes on to say that Attachment 15 must be accompanied by a “single integrated index for the entire Technical proposal.”

There is an inconsistency between what the Government is requesting in Paragraph 2.k versus the page limitation expressed in the table that is in Paragraph 2.c.

Alternative 1: Delete the requirement for the integrated index

Alternative 2: Allow sufficient page count to provide both a completed Attachment 15 and an integrated index

Deleted, “single integrated index for the entire Technical Proposal;”, in updated RFP.

RFP Section L Page 114, Section A.1.c. (Table)

Fourth line of the table states CDRLs identified under L.1.2.4 are in the 60 -page limit for Section B, Subfactor 1.2 of the proposal

DD1423s will have little evaluation value for the Government during the proposal evaluation process. These pages would be better used describing the technical and management solutions required by Section L.1.2.4.

Clearly state that the Government does not want DD1423s submitted with the proposal

RFP updated- "...Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) identified under L.1.2.4 is excluded from the page count."

RFP Section L Page 114, Section A.1.c. (Table)

Fourth line of the table states CDRLs identified under L.1.2.4 are in the 60 -page limit for Section B, Subfactor 1.2 of the proposal

If the Government does want DD1423s submitted with the proposal, does that requirement include all DD1423s we anticipate using on the MISTE program?

Or is this requirement limited to the specific documents listed in Section L.1.2.4?

If the Government does want DD1423s submitted with the proposal, clearly state exactly which ones should be submitted

The RFP states the requirement for certain DID's/CDRLs to be submitted that will be evaluated. They are clearly identified.

RFP Section L Page 114, Section A.1.c. (Table)

Fourth line of the table states CDRLs identified under L.1.2.4 are in the 60 -page limit for Section B, Subfactor 1.2 of the proposal

The wording of both Section L.1.2.4 and M.1.2.4 indicate the Government wants a Contract Data Management Plan submitted with the proposal. Is this Plan included in the 60-page limit for Section B Subfactor 1.2?

Since the Government states in Section 1.2.4 that it will evaluate an offeror's Contract Data Management Plan, please state clearly in Sections L.A.1.c and L.2.1.4 that this plan is required to be submitted with the proposal

RFP updated- This proposal submission shall include the Offeror’s proposed Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) submittal in accordance with DI-MGMT-82228, Contractor’s Data Management Plan (CDMP).

Table in Section L A.1.C. updated- "...Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) identified under L.1.2.4 is excluded from the page count."

RFP Section L Page 114, Section A.1.c. (Table)

Fourth line of the table states a 60 -page limit for Section B, Subfactor 1.2 of the proposal. This requirement seems to include a SOW, CDRLs and Contract Data Management Plan

The MIISTE SOW, CDRLs and Contract Data Management Plan are meant to serve as comprehensive and enforceable contractual documents. Page limiting these documents to fit within 60 pages severely limits an offeror's ability to comprehensively address all program facets.

The MISTE Base SOW is 43 pages, the TNM SOW is 32 pages, and the SCETI SOW is 32 pages. SCETI has 22 pages of 1423s and TNM has 23 pages of 1423s. The average number of pages in MISTE SOWs is 36 with an average number of 22 pages of DD1423s for a total average count of 58 pages. Our existing approved program Contract Data Management Plans are in the 30-35 page range.

Even if we streamline these documents for the MISTE proposal, offerors will need all or most of the 60 pages simply for these documents, leaving little or no room for addressing the primary requirements of Section B

Please separate the page count limits within Section B.

We believe the SOW, DD1423s (if required at all) and Contractor's Data Management Plan should not contain page restrictions.

However, if the Government wants to page limit these contractual documents, we recommend the following limits:

- 35 pages for the SOW

- 15 pages for the DD1423s (if req'd)

- 35 pages for the Contractor's Data Management Plan

RFP updated- This proposal submission shall include the Offeror’s proposed Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) submittal in accordance with DI-MGMT-82228, Contractor’s Data Management Plan (CDMP).

Table in Section L A.1.C. updated- "...Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) identified under L.1.2.4 is excluded from the page count."

SCETI ACE SOW, SOW- 2018-0018,

15 April 2019

3.2.1.3, Pg. 13 What is the current as built state of the SCETI Test Control Center (TCC)? Will the government provide artifacts that document the as built state prior to RFP release?

The ability to control the SCETI ACE subassemblies from the TCC will require the contractor to understand what controls are needed and what measurements are required in the TCC. There are no descriptive details of the TCC in either the SOW or the Performance Specification.

The Government response to the Draft RFP question that the as built state has no impact on offeror's proposed solution should be made more explicit in the SCETI SOW and/or SCETI Spec.

The SCETI Test Control Center (TCC) has not been designed or built to date. Therefore, the Government has no artifacts to provide at RFP release

Performance Spec SCETI ACE, PRF- PT-703, 15 April 2019

3.7.4, Pg. 14 Will SCETI components be stored under cover and/or in a climate controlled environment or will they be stored uncovered/unsheltered?

Information requested will affect proposed SCETI ACE solution

The Government should state in the Spec that the SCETI equipment should be stored uncovered and unsheltered if that is the intent. In the Response to DRAFT RFP Questions in was stated this way but the Spec was never updated.

No, the SCETI components will not be stored under cover and/or in a climate controlled environment.

MISTE Proposal Attachment 18

Pg. 1, Item 0001, Design Phase and

Item 0002 - Hardware/ Material

CLIN 0001 is delivery date 12 months after award and completion of Critical Design Review (CDR). CLIN 0002 has delivery date 12 months after award. Please confirm that delivery date of CLIN 0002 is either 12 months after award or 12 months after completion of CLIN 0001.

Are CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 supposed to be delivered 12 months after award?

Primary concern is this affects Period of Performance.

CLIN 0002 12 months after completion of CLIN 0001

Updated CLINs Delivery Dates. Updated RFP.

MISTE Base SOW 3.5.3 The contractor shall have a Defense Security Service (DDS) cleared facility at the time of Contract Award (CA) based on the DD Form 254 Security Classification.

This requirement may hinder or restrict competition and conflicts with the Past Performance section that allows for new entities or JV's.

Recommend change: The contractor shall have access to a Defense Security Service (DSS) cleared facility at the time of Contract Award (CA) based on the DD Form 254 Security Classification. If the contractor requires additional places of performance, the contractor shall submit and obtain appropriate facility clearance IAW DD Form 254 through DSS.

Updated MISTE Base SOW para 3.5.3. states, "Prior to commencing work, the contractor shall have a Defense Security Service (DSS) cleared facility based on the DD Form 254 security classification and shall be maintained throughout the term of the contract."

MISTE Base SOW Pg. 8-9, Sections 3.3.1-3.3.1.4

Seems there is different verbiage used through these sections to describe the same approach/deliverable.

4.Enterprise management 5.Enterprise management approach

8.TISE Data System 9.TISE Processes and Tools

There is redundancy in the verbiage.

Understanding this verbiage is key to develop the structure of this requirement and providing a clear understanding to the Government of our solution.

Use a common term to describe the common requirement.

The basis of the MISTE contract requirement is outlined in the SOW scope. The requested industry TISE solution concept requirement is defined in each of the subsection narratives as stated in sections 3.3.1--3.3.1.4.

Request for Proposal (RFP) Pg. 119, Section L.1.2.1

The last sentence that provides sections in the SOW required for compliance. "The offeror shall propose a MISTE TISE concept of operations that complies with the MISTE Base SOW Sections 1.3 and 3.0 (including sub-sections)

What sub sections are included? Left up to interpretation. Provide the actual sub-section numbers that are included.

MISTE SOW 3, 3.1 through 3.3.1.5 as stated in the in the SOW.

DO- SCETI ACE 3.4

The contractor shall conduct engineering analyses to establish quantitative and qualitative supportability design guidelines. The contractor shall conduct trade studies;

evaluate design and support alternatives; and establish system supportability preliminary design configurations consistent with system readiness, availability, and LCC goals.

Issue: Design engineering, establishing design guidelines and design configurations, and conducting trade studies are all Design Engineering functions and outside the prevue of ILS.

Issue solution recommendation (s):

Recommend removing Design Engineering requirements from Logistics paragraph and rewrite for Logistics, for example:

"The contractor shall conduct logistics supportability analysis, as part of the system engineering and design process, to increase efficiency of maintenance and reduce lifecycle costs by preplanning all aspects of Integrated Product Support.

No change, language will remain as stated in section 3.4 of SCETI ACE Delivery Order.

MISTE DO TNM EPG SPEC Pg 8 Section 3.1.2 "The TISN-EN Network shall have the following latency regardless of physical routing protocol: 5 milliseconds Objective, 50 milliseconds Threshold."

Are these average latency figures or worst case? Clarification between average and worst case latency.

No, these are not average latency figures. These are the objective and threshold values. Objective value is 5 milliseconds, and the not to exceed threshold 50 milliseconds.

MISTE DO TNM EPG SPEC Pg 8 Section 3.1.3

"TISN-EN architecture availability (Excerpt from Unified Capabilities Requirements (UCR)) for EPG shall be four nines. Availability shall be Operational Availability (Ao) to account for preventative maintenance and scheduled downtime."

Is this per device, per site, or overall? Clarification of availability.

The operational availability (Ao) is for the overall operation of the network performance and not the individual devices.

MISTE DO TNM EPG SPEC Pg 17 Section 3.5.2.2

“All devices shall have a CLI-based console port for local administration (2FA)”

Does this mean the console port must support two-factor Authentication?

Is any form of console port allowed?

Is there a serial or dedicated IP?

Clarification that console requires 2FA.

Clarification on console port type.

Clarification on serial or dedicated IP.

Does this mean the console port must support two-factor Authentication? YES Is any form of console allowed? YES Is there a serial or dedicated IP? Serial

MISTE DO TNM EPG SPEC Pg 24 Section 3.5.12.4

100GBASE-SX, SFP optic (LC), for multimode fiber transmissions.

What is the minimum distance required for SX? 220M/550M? Please provide minimum distance for SX. Minimum distance for SX shall be 550M. Updated TNM-EPG

Specs Section 3.5.12.4.

MISTE SCETI ACE SPEC G64C64:H64+C64

:L64+C64+C64:I64

“All systems shall be operable outdoors in temperature and weather conditions typical to Redstone Arsenal year round.”

This specification seems to conflict with the middle of page 10, which reads "...

generating representative snow conditions is challenging due to weather condition dependencies..." Does Paragraph 1 require snow generation "year round", including in hot temperatures?

Clarification regarding snow generation during hot temperatures.

Section 3.1.2.2 was updated, removed year round requirement.

The Offeror is required to provide operational conditions for their technical solution. Offerors shall include limitations, assumptions, and details of technical solution to meet performance specification.

MISTE SCETI ACE SPEC Pg 10 Section 3.2 "…The generated snow shall be water based and not artificially/chemically created"

Recommend this specification be revised to allow trace quantities of ice nucleating chemicals, which are commonly used by commercial snow machines in ski resorts, and without which artificial snow production would require atmospheric temperatures far below freezing.

Recommend a revision to specification to allow ice nucleating crystals for artificial snow production.

Updated SCETI ACE SOW. Industry may use ice nucleating crystals in generating snow.

MISTE SCETI ACE SPEC Pg 11 Section 3.3

“SCETI shall generate operationally relevant DVE fog conditions at the SCETI site at RTC as described in the Weather Taxonomy for Atmospheric Fog that replicates closely the atmospheric parameters for radiation fog, ground fog and advection fog.”

Can the Government clarify if this specification means replicating the droplet size distributions in these fogs?

Section 2.1 of the Taxonomy Report lists the range of fog droplet size distributions . Offerors shall describe the capabilities of their solution to produce the types of fog listed in the Specification.

Offeror's shall describe the details of technical approach.

Request for Proposal (RFP)

Factor 2: Past Performance Volume

Two (2) reference may be that of Major Subcontractor Team Members(s) as defined in L.2.3, who are represented by a major portion of the labor mix detailed for this effort and where their citation must be of that also performing in either a Prime Contractor or Major Subcontractor capacity.

Section L.2.3: Major Subcontractor Definition: Major subcontractor is defined as a work effort valued at 20% of the contract value.

Stipulating that a subcontractor is to perform any percentage of workshare appears to conflict with the premise of TISE, reducing and limiting fair and open competition. Subcontractors are selected to perform delivery orders or portions thereof based on an overall evaluation of their proposals utilizing the TISE process.

Respectfully, would the government consider removing the 20% value and allow the Contractor to submit up to two Subcontractor past performance citations that are more relevant to MISTE

RFP Section L.2.3 updated.

Sheet1