W911SR-16-R-0001-0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

This amendment is to :

1. Provide Q&As in response to the RFP.

2. Revise Performance Work Statement (PWS)

3. Revise CDRLS, DD Form 1423

4. Revise Section L and Section M.

5. Revise Section J attachments

6. Incorporate RFP Q&As that w ere posted to FEDBiz Opps (FBO) on 19 May 2016.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 66

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-Jun-2016

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W911SR-16-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-May-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

01-Jun-2016

CODE

USA CONTRACTING CMD-APG. - W911SR

EDGEWOOD CONTRACTING DIVISION

E4215 AUSTIN ROAD

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 21010-5401

W911SR 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W911SR-16-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

AMENDMENT 0002

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0002 RFP Q&A'S

Amendment 0002

1. Section L.3.5.2 directs the offeror to provide an IMS defining "proposed time phasing of detailed tasks." A detailed IMS will take a significant number of pages and Volume V Program Management is limited to 20 pages. This will not allow offerors to adequately describe their Program Management approach. Will the government modify Section L to allow the IMS to be submitted as an Attachment to Volume V that does not count against the 20 page limit?

A: The Government will not modify the approach. The Offeror shall include the IMS within the 20-page volume limitation. Oversized pages can be used in accordance with L.2.4.

2. Table 1 of the PWS identifies selected PRD sections and specifies whether the requirements of that PRD section must be met by both the brassboard and final prototypes, or only by the final prototype. Can we assume that requirements for PRD Section 3 subsections not listed in Table 1 of the PWS (e.g. Section 3.3.2.1.2, Maneuvering speeds; Section 3.4.14, Blowing rain) need not be met by either of the prototype classes?

A: The assumption is correct, the only applicable sections of the PRD are in C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 of the PWS.

3. Ref: PRD Table 1, Training Mode:

“The CSD shall be able to accept input from the operator or CDPU to define notional boundaries of a specific chemical… When the vehicle is inside these boundaries, the system shall respond as if it actually detected the input chemical”. Is this required for TMRR, and if so, what vehicle navigation capabilities are we allowed to tap into (GPS or other navigation system to indicate vehicle position)?

A: Please refer to Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 of the Performance Work Statement for applicable PRD Requirements for the TMRR phase.

4. Ref: PRD 3.3.2.2

What is the definition of “confidence level”? How is this metric measured?

A: Confidence level is defined as the probability that the value of a parameter falls within a specified range of values. The number of trials for each test are to be determined.

5. Ref: PRD 3.3.2.3

Is the false alarm rate allowable the same for all surfaces? Under what conditions is the mean time between false alarms measured? Associated Note: **In general, probability of detection, probability of false alarm, and mean time between false alarms are all numbers which will vary wildly depending on what is used to calculate them.

A: Yes, the false alarm rate is the minimum acceptable level for all surfaces. The test plans for each test are still to be determined.

6. Ref: PRD 3.3.2.8.2

Data collected includes location of events – what vehicle navigation data will be available to tie into the CSD, or is the CSD required to have its own GPS antenna or other navigation capability?

A: Please refer to Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 of the Performance Work Statement for applicable PRD Requirements for the TMRR phase.

7. Ref: PRD 3.3.2.8.7

As with 3.2.1.1, are we still required to integrate with CDPU for TMRR?

A: Please refer to Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 of the Performance Work Statement for applicable PRD Requirements for the TMRR phase.

8. Ref: PRD 3.4.5.1

In what configuration does the CSD need to survive the drop? I.E. if the CSD contains multiple modules do all modules need to be connected or can modules be separated?

A: Please refer to Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 of the Performance Work Statement for applicable PRD Requirements for the TMRR phase

9. Ref: PRD 3.4.16

Are decontamination, chemical absorption, and corrosion requirements for externally mounted components only, or all components?

A: Please refer to Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 of the Performance Work Statement for applicable PRD Requirements for the TMRR phase.

10. Ref: PRD 3.4.17

What are the specifications of the platform fire suppression system?

A: Please refer to Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 of the Performance Work Statement for applicable PRD Requirements for the TMRR phase

11. Ref: PRD 4.3.1

This states that first article sample consists of 5 CSDs. Is this part of the TMRR project?

A: Please refer to Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 of the Performance Work Statement for applicable PRD Requirements for the TMRR phase.

12. Ref: PRD 3.2.1.1

Still references the Central Data Processing Unit (CDPU). Answer number 9 (from the December 2015 Q&A) stated that Stryker interface requirements (including CDPU) would not be applied during TMRR, yet the requirement still remains in the PRD. Is it assumed that the contractor may ignore this requirement?

A: Please refer to Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 of the Performance Work Statement for applicable PRD Requirements for the TMRR phase.

13. Ref: PRD 3.2.1.3

Still references avoiding modifications to the Stryker vehicle; no information regarding the Stryker vehicle has been provided to allow review of interface options. Answer number 9 (from the December 2015 Q&A) stated that Stryker interface requirements would not be applied during TMRR, yet the requirement still remains in the PRD. Is it assumed that the contractor may ignore this requirement?

A: Please refer to Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 of the Performance Work Statement for applicable PRD Requirements for the TMRR phase.

14. Ref: PRD 3.2.1.5

(new requirement) References the Central Data Processing Unit (CDPU). Answer number 9 (from the December 2015 Q&A) stated that Stryker interface requirements (including CDPU) would not be applied during TMRR, yet the requirement still remains in the PRD. Is it assumed that the contractor may ignore this requirement?

A: Please refer to Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 of the Performance Work Statement for applicable

15. Ref: PRD 3.3.2.7.1

Answer 21 (from the December 2015 Q&A) relating to this paragraph stated that it “would not be applied for this effort,” yet the requirement still remains in the PRD. Is it assumed that the contractor may ignore this requirement?

A: Please refer to Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 of the Performance Work Statement for applicable

16. Ref: PRD 3.3.2.8.9

Per answer number 57 (from the December 2015 Q&A), this requirement would not be applied during TMRR, yet the requirement still remains in the PRD. Is it assumed that the contractor may ignore this requirement?

A: Please refer to Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 of the Performance Work Statement for applicable PRD Requirements for the TMRR phase.

17. Ref: PRD 3.3.2.10

Please clarify how the threshold requirement for 30 minute start up relates to the 3.3.1.1 threshold requirement for 20 minute start up.

A: Please refer to Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 of the Performance Work Statement for applicable PRD Requirements for the TMRR phase. PRD paragraph 3.3.2.10 will not apply in the TMRR phase and is only shown so that future requirements will be understood. Fully mission capable as mentioned in PRD paragraph 3.3.2.10 may include more than just the Built-in-Test and the Startup Functional Mode.

18. Ref: FBO Website, General Question

FBO Posting of the CSD release states that questions will be accepted until May 16, with the proposals due June 7. The interval between these two dates would not appear to allow time for the government to answer the questions and contractors to respond to any redirection provided in the answers.

A: The Government posted solicitation amendment 0001 to Fed Biz Opps (FBO) on 27 May 2016 providing an RFP extension to June 16th, 2016.

19. Ref: PRD 3.2.1.4 refers to non-interference with other platform capabilities. Please define the capabilities the CSD shall not interfere with.

A. The CSD shall not interfere with the host platform survivability, suitability, and effectiveness.

20. Ref: PRD 3.2.1.4

Please identify the equipment that the CSD will "not" interfere with. Will this equipment be installed in the MK 998 during Phase Two testing. How will "interference be identified/defined?

A.See response to Question 19.

21. Ref: RFP C.3.1.7

Please confirm EOA training will be conducted at Ft. Hood, TX and EOA will be conducted at DPG, per as Table 3, Schedule of events.

A. Correct, the EOA training will be conducted at Ft. Hood, TX and the EOA will be conducted at DPG, as per Table 3, Schedule of Events.

22. Ref: RFP C.3.1.4.2.2.3, C.3.1.4.2.2.4, C.3.1.4.2.3

The order of use indicated in the referenced paragraphs conflicts with the order of use indicated in C.3.1.7 SOE. Please clarify.

A. Refer to Question #9 on the Q&As posted on 5/19/16.Additionally, paragraphs C.3.1.4.2.2.3, C.3.1.4.2.2.4, C.3.1.4.2.3 will be reordered to match the Schedule of Events..

23. Ref: RFP 3.1.4.2.2.4 The CCSI Demonstration is not indicated in the C.3.1.7 SOE. Please clarify and amend SOE to show CCSI demonstration and impact on overall timeline.

A.Refer to Question #9 on the Q&As posted on 5/19/16.24. Ref: RFP C1.4.3.2

The first sentence is missing content. Please clarify

A: The first sentence in PWS paragraph C.3.1.4.3.2 will be revised to state: “The Government will not return any equipment to the contractor that may have been exposed to chemical agent.”

25. Ref: RFP C3.1.6.4.3

Referenced Para states Bi-weekly meeting starts the "first month following the Start-of-Work meeting however C.3.1.7 SOE indicates the first Bi-weekly meeting will be conducted starting 4 calendar days after contract award. Please clarify.

A: PWS paragraph C.3.1.6.4.3 will be revised as follows: “The contractor shall hold bi-weekly teleconferences with the Government for ongoing activities IAW the Schedule of Events. The purpose of these meetings is for the contractor and Government representatives to openly discuss technical progress, issues, and risks. The Contractor and Government may mutually agree to cancel a bi-weekly teleconference during a particular month due to lack of discussion topics or a review or meeting being held the same month.”

26. Ref: RFP C.3.1.6.5.2

Please confirm that parts can be ordered prior to the Design Review. If parts cannot be ordered, this presents schedule risk toward meeting the 180 CDAC delivery of brassboard prototypes.

A: Parts can be ordered. The following paragraph will be added to the PWS “The contractor shall submit a request to the Contracting Officer for permission to purchase long lead items or start long lead activities prior to design reviews with supporting justification. The contractor shall not order any long lead items until receipt of approval from the Contracting Officer.”

27. Ref: CDRL A003

Block 12 references Block 16 however there is no comment associated with block 12. Please clarify date of first submission.

A: CDRL A003 Block 16 will be revised to include date of first submission 45 days prior to Brassboard Testing.

28. Ref: CDRL A004

Block 13 states that the subsequent submission is due "15 Calendar days after contract award".

This contradicts the original submission date of "90 days after contract award" Please clarify.

A: CDRL A004 will be revised to state 15 Days after Government comments.

29. Ref: CDRL A015

Please verify the length of time for the Government response period.

A: CDRL A015 block 16 will be revised to state: “The Government will respond with comments or approval within 20 days after receipt”.

30. Ref: RFP L.3.4.2.1.2.4

Offeror’s POC name, phone number, and email address, for the POC responsible for completing the Past Performance Questionnaire (L.3.4.2.3 Section 3 – Past Performance Questionnaire). Is this the info the offeror puts in Section H of the Questionnaire?

A. Section L.3.4.2.1.2.4 will be deleted. Section L. will be updated and renumbered.

31. Ref: RFP C.3.1.3.2

FRACAS is to be implemented during Government conducted testing and EOA. Please confirm that this is for brassboard phase events (Tech Test 1, Tech Test 2, Blind Test) in addition to Final Prototype phase test events.

A: Confirmed.

32. Ref: RFP 3.1.4.3.1

Please confirm that the paragraph following C.3.1.4.3.1 System Maintenance should be numbered C.3.1.4.3.1.1 and not C.3.1.4.4.1.1 as shown.

A: The paragraph reference is correct and refers to the training manual requirement in the RFP.

33. Ref: RFP C.3.1.7

Please clarify if Test Site Training #2 at DPG and APG are planned to be held on the same day or if they will be held in series (allowing one training team to support both events).

A: Test Site Training #2 at DPG and APG are planned to be held on the same day; so that testing can occur concurrently.

34. Is there any restriction on teaming with a foreign sub-contractor if the foreign subcontractor is already operating under a US-ROK International Program Agreement in a directly related area of effort?

A: Refer to Section H.1 Security Provisions regarding foreign nationals. It is incumbent upon all offerors to ensure any proposed team member, foreign or otherwise, comply with the terms of the solicitation.

35. Must all CSD project staff possess a Secret Clearance?

A: No. DD FORM 254, 13.1. makes reference to performing IAW National Industrial Security Operation Manual (NIPSOM, DoD 5220.22-M) and DoD 5220.22-M, 2-200.a. States “An employee may be processed for a PCL (Personal Security Clearance) when the contractor determines that access is essential in the performance of tasks or services related to the fulfillment of a classified contract.” Also DoD 5220.22-M, 2-200.d. states “The contractor shall limit requests for PCLs to the minimal number of employees necessary for operational efficiency, consistent with contractual obligations and other requirements of this Manual.”

36. May the Government please grant a 21 days extension of proposal due date in order to accommodate all required teaming documents and related administration in order to support the nine volumes required of the CSD proposal?

A: See response to Question #18

37. Is there any preference or expectation that the CSD sensor module be placed at the front of the platform in order to mitigate contamination?

A: No. The contractor should plan for the sensor placement as presented in the PWS (C.3.1.1.2.

- “forward mounting, rear mounting, or mounted on a trailer”.)

38. When does the Government intend to provide details and protocols on CSD laboratory and field testing?

A: No additional details will be provided prior to contract award. The Government needs to identify the technologies developed/presented by the contractors and only then can the government identify the test details and capabilities required to test the CSD(s).

39. C.3.1 Can you please clarify: is the Data Transfer Demonstration listed in C.3.1 the same activity as the CCSI demonstration listed in C.3.1.4.2 or is it as defined in C.3.1.4.4.2.1 in the Training section?

A. The Data Transfer Demonstration is the CCSI demonstration listed in C.3.1.4.2.

40. C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 and text in other parts of the RFP, section C and L would seem to contradict each other. For instance:

Humidity not listed in L.3.1.5.2, but it is shown in Table 1.

C.3.1.4.1.1 lists PRD 3.3.2.1.6 as a requirement but it is not listed in Table 1.

C.3.1.4.2.3, Table 2 shows Storage Temperature testing, but this testing is not listed in Table 1. Please clarify.

A: The Government will remove the humidity tests from the TMRR acquisition phase PWS.

Table 1 in the PWS will be updated to include Storage Testing.

41. C.3.1.7 The Schedule of Events does not detail the location or timing of the CCSI demonstration. Do we assume it occurs immediately after the EOA in the same location?

Refer to Question #9 on the Q&As posted on 5/19/16.42. C.3.1.1.3 PRD size and weight and Human Factors requirements are not listed as TMRR requirements in Table 1 of C.3.1.1.3. But meeting the "required detector size and weight" is listed as an evaluation criterion in M.5.2.1.6 and in proposal instruction L.3.1.6. Please clarify.

A: M.5.2.1.5 and M.5.2.1.6 will be combined to read: “The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s development approach to meet the applicable functional characteristics requirements of the CSD PRD as described in Section L.3.1.5 through L.3.1.5.2. including a depiction and the configuration of the proposed CSD for Brassboard and Final Prototype Tests.”

L.3.1.6 will now read: “The Offeror shall discuss the development approach to meet the applicable functional characteristics requirements of the CSD PRD, including a depiction and configuration of the proposed CSD for Brassboard and Final Prototyping tests.”

43. C.3.1.1.3 PRD power requirements [total power (3.3.2.9) and 28V operation (3.2.3.1)] are not listed as TMRR requirements in Table 1 of C.3.1.1.3. But meeting the requirements of the

"electrical interfaces" is listed as an evaluation criterion in M.5.2.1.7 and in proposal instruction L.3.1.7. Please clarify.

A: “The Offeror shall discuss the proposed design approaches to meet the physical and electrical interfaces.” will be removed from L.3.1.7. In Section M.5.2.1.6 “including physical and electrical interfaces” will be removed.

44. C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 indicates that the final prototypes will be tested only to operational temperature limits. But section C.3.1.4.2.3 Table 2 indicates that the final prototypes will be tested both to operational and storage temperature limits. Please clarify what temperature tests will be performed with the system operating and not operating.

A: See response to Question # 40.

45. C.3.1.4.1 Can one brassboard system be considered as a spare for the other brassboard system during the brassboard tests, or will the test require independent testing of each brassboard system?

A: Yes.

46. C.3.1.4.2.1 Can one final prototype system be considered as a spare for the other prototype system during the Chamber tests, or will the test require independent testing of each system?

A: Test Methodologies will be developed in detail after award of the contract and when the system design is known.

47. C.3.1.4.2 Can a final prototype system not currently under test be considered a spare unit for one that fails under test until the failed unit can be repaired?

A: Yes, but a system has to be ready for MIL-STD-810 test.

48. C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 shows PRD Paragraph 3.3.2.1.1, Detection, as a requirement for the Brassboard Prototype but the Brassboard Prototype is a laboratory test unit and will not be subjected to vehicle speeds. Do you mean equivalent vehicle speeds created in a laboratory environment?

A: The CWA and Chemicals in Table 4 of the PRD chamber test methodologies have not been determined.

49. C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 does not reference PRD section 3.3.2.8.9 related to the storage of classified data. But section L.3.5.3 requests a description of how classified information provided by the Government or generated during testing would be processed, protected, and stored. Does the proposal need to address this sentence in section L?

A: Yes. PRD section 3.3.2.8.9 refers to classified information on the sensor (e.g. detection algorithms, detections results). Since it is not expected that classified information will be processed and stored on the system during testing, PRD sections 3.3.2.8.9 will not apply and is not contained in Table 1 of the PWS. L.3.5.3 refers to classified materials provided to the Contractor by the Government. Test reports identifying capabilities and limitations may be classified.

50. C.3.1.4.1 Will any classified information be generated or stored on the Brassboard systems during Brassboard testing or at other times? C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 does not refer to PRD section 3.3.2.8.9, classified data storage. Please clarify.

A: It is not anticipated that the sensor used in testing will contain classified information. The testing may reveal capabilities and limitations of the offeror’s CSD and this information may become classified.

51. 3.3.2.3 The mean time between false alarms has been changed from 10 hours (objective of 114 hours) in the DRFP to at least 50 hours (objective of 114 hours). Is this correct?

A: Yes.

52. When will the United States Government (USG) provide responses to these questions?

Given the short RFP response requirements with proposals due in 30 days, will the USG be providing responses to these questions this week to facilitate our preparation of the proposals?

A: See response to Question #18.

53. Please provide clarification on the duration of the test support. For instance, Table 3 shows 120 days for Chamber Testing of the Final Prototype. Does that mean that the offeror should have someone on‐site for the entire 120 calendar day period, or will we only need to have someone there for a shorter period, such as 30 days during that 120‐day window?

A: Offeror’s should propose their own solution on how best to support testing.

54. C.3.1.6.5.3 references a Final Review (FR), but we could not find this item on the Schedule of Events (C.3.1.7). Is this Final Review the same event as the Final Prototype Design Review

(DR) #2?

A: The Final Review is the same event as PR #4. The PWS will be updated.

55. Our proposing entity has a past performance contract that is being performed at their location; however, the contract was initiated at a different location, which has since closed. The CAGE code and DUNS number do not match that of the proposing entity since the contract has not been novated. Can we include this contract since the proposing entity is performing the work at their location?

A: Yes.

56. If a prime has another business segment within its organization that is providing labor to support the proposed work and offers past performance experience, be it under a separate CAGE and DUNS in a relevant area, is there a way to include this in the past performance section?

A. No, IAW L.3.4.2.1.1.1, for large multi-function firms, all past performance information provided shall be specific to the offering segment of the firm (e.g., division, group, unit, etc.) that is submitting the proposal.

57. Can you provide clarification on the distinction between sections L.3.4.2.1.2.7 and L.3.4.2.1.2.8?

A: L.3.4.2.1.2.8 is duplicative and will be removed. Section L will be updated and renumbered.

58. Should the table described in Section L.3.4.2.3.2.2 be submitted as a separate word file with Volume IV?

A: Yes. Section L.3.4.2.3.3 will updated.

59. Section L.3.12 states that JPEO‐CBD will be able to sponsor an entity to attain a facility clearance, does the same apply for an individual?

A: Once the prime contractor is awarded the contract the JPEO-CBD will then sponsor the prime for a facility clearance. Once the prime contractor is approved for a facility clearance the prime contractor can then begin to process their employee(s) for an individual security clearance.

60. Sections L.3.1.5.1 and L.3.1.5.2 refer to the brassboard and final prototype testing, respectively. In the two testing events, 8 and 12 chemicals identified in the CSD PRD will be selected. Can you tell us how these chemicals will be selected? Also, can you provide any additional information on how the chemicals will be presented during these testing events, i.e.

masses, substrate size, etc.?

A. See response to Question 46.

61. Can you provide any information on how the solid contaminant will be presented, similar to the median mass diameter listed for liquids?

A. See response to Question 46.

62. Regarding Section 3.3.2.2 of the PRD, our understanding of the test is that the probability of detection required for each of the road types (85% for country road, 90% for secondary road, and 93% for primary road) must be met 80% of the time, i.e. the confidence level. Is this accurate?

A: See response to Question 46.

63. Can you provide any additional details on how the vehicle‐simulant operational testing will occur?

A: See response to Question 46

64. Referencing Sections C.3.1.2.3.3; C.3.1.2.3.3.1, Will the USG consider releasing a technical data package for the NBCRV sensor suite to aide offerors in planning ultimately for the necessary MOSA to support integration of the CSD into the NBCRV platforms? It is understood this work is not required for TMRR bids; however, the upfront planning in systems design and therefore engineering tradeoffs is. As cited within specifications for MOSA‐ per C.3.1.2.3.3; All the CSD system components and subsystems shall facilitate future upgrades and permit incremental technology insertion to allow for incorporation of additional or substitution of higher performance elements with minimal impact on the existing systems.

And per C.3.1.2.3.3.1.‐The contractor shall design the CSD to provide sufficient growth and open interface standards to allow future reconfiguration and addition of new capabilities without large‐scale redesign of the system.

A: The Government will not provide the technical data package for the NBCRV Sensor Suite.

65. Section C.3.1.2.5. Are the ICDs to be prepared for the final four prototypes to support integration into the HMMV? If so, will the USG be providing any specifications for compatibility with the HMMV platform? Reference: Interfaces Control and Performance Specifications. The contractor shall prepare, deliver, and update Interface Control Documentation (ICD) that identifies the interface requirements between Hardware Configuration Items (HWCI) and hardware (HWCI to HWCI); Software Configuration Items (SCI) and hardware devices (SCI to HWCI); and HWCI and SCI to systems external to CSD IAW ELIN A004. The contractor shall define and brief the configuration items at Technical Reviews.

A: The Government will not provide any specifications prior to Contract Award.

66. CLIN 0003. For clarification; if CDRLs referenced in CLIN 0003 are not separately priced;

all level of effort to support preparation of, revisions to, and provisioning of these deliverables should be priced within CLIN 0001 as CPFF?

A: Yes.

67. What version of the PRD was provided for reference? The title page does not include version or date; within the RFP, Section C.2.3.2. references PDR 20 November 2015, please confirm this is the same version provided within the RFP package? For clarification; believe CLIN 0002 and CLIN 0003 are reversed herein L.3.7.1.2 CLIN 0002 (Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs) shall be "Not Separately Priced (NSP)" L.3.7.1.3 CLIN 0003 (Accounting for Contract Services).

As part of its proposal, the Offeror shall provide a total price (if any) incurred to comply with the Contractor Manpower Reporting Application (CMRA) requirement. The Government prefers this CLIN be not‐separately priced;

however, if the Offeror decides to separately price CLIN 0003 it shall be priced as a firm‐fixed contract type. If the Offeror separately prices CLIN 0003 the CLIN will be the CLIN under which the contractor shall bill for the costs associated with the CMRA requirement.

A: The PRD provided is the version referenced in section C.2.3.2. Section L.3.7.1.2 and L.3.7.1.3 will be revised to reflect the CLIN structure presented in section B.

68. Will the USG provide space to the vendor to refurbish the two brassboard prototypes between Tech Test 1 and Tech Test 2 and/or the Blind Test if needed, since these articles will not be returned to the vendor following Tech Test 1 if exposed to agents during the test? Will the USG arrange for transport of the prototypes between Test events.

A: The Government will provide space to refurbish the Brassboard prototypes if the system has not been exposed to agents.

69. Is there a protocol the USG can provide for how these simulants will be released to support this testing?

Our ability to understand the parameters for testing and the anticipated aerosol dispersion is imperative for our probability of detection assertions.

A: Test Methodologies are still TBD. Assume a median mass diameter of 500 µm per PRD section 3.3.2.1.4, 3.3.2.1.5, 3.3.1.2.6.

70. Requirements are cited discussing both advancement to TRL 8 of the final CSD as well as Stryker integration, yet no details are provided as to engineering parameters necessary to support eventual integration of the final CSD into the Stryker platform.

A: The Government is not evaluating integration to the Stryker platform for this phase of the program.

71. Clarification‐ How will the contamination be presented on the surface? This process will impact probability of detection?

A: Test Methodologies are still TBD.

72. Is the IMS to be included in the 20‐page count within the Volume V?

A: See response to Question #1.

73. The link referenced for the request to obtain the CCSI guidance appears to not be active?

http://www.jpeocbd.osd.mil/packs/Default.aspx?pg=860

A: The link is active.

74. Are there file size restrictions for submittal of proposal volumes through FBO and/or direct emails of supporting cost information IAW L.1.6?

A: Offerors shall have sole responsibility for ensuring that all electronic responses are submitted correctly. Offerors are encouraged to contact FBO or refer to the FBO user guide regarding electronic submissions.

Emails of supporting cost information IAW L.1.6 shall not exceed 20MB. Section L.1.6 will be updated.

75. Explicitly which of the 8 agents listed in the PRD tables are required for compliance? Or can vendors select eight from those cited within Table 3.

A: The Government will select the materials.

76. Explicitly which of the 12 agents listed in the PRD tables are required for compliance? Or can vendors select twelve from those cited within Table 3. Costs are not to be addressed other than within Volume 6 per L.2.9. However, within requirements for Volume 2: Support and Ownership‐the ILA Checklist per L.3.2.5, there are several data elements with requirements addressing cost drivers, justification and documentation. How does one address cost in ILA without providing cost information?

A: The Government will select the materials. Cost drivers shall be discussed and justified without producing actual costs.

77. Are two completed questionnaires required, one for each the contracting and technical representative per each past performance citation?

A: No, only one questionnaire is required for each past performance citation referenced.

78. What is the scope for Option 1 and Option 2? Why are option 1 and 2 period of performance included in the pricing template?

A: There are no options associated with this solicitation. The pricing template will be revised to remove options.

79. Will the USG will provide confirmation to vendors as they receive past performance questionnaires as they are a required part of our submission, or is this the responsibility of the offeror?

A: Although the Government may contact an entity to obtain feedback when a Past Performance Questionnaire is not returned, it is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure past performance questionnaires are submitted.

80. Section L.3.4.2.2.2 states: “The Offeror shall not exceed two (2) pages for each contract cited. (This page limitation is inclusive of all information requested in section L.2.1, Table L-2.)”.

a) Was Table L-1 meant rather than Table L-2?

b) The parenthetical statement doesn’t seem to make sense since the PP Volume is not page limited. What are we to understand from the parenthetical statement?

c) Does this mean that the 2 page limit on narrative does not include the table of contact information, etc?

A: The detailed narrative for each contract reference shall not exceed two pages per reference.

The parenthetical statement, “(This page limitation is inclusive of all information requested in section L.2.1, Table L-2.)” will be deleted from paragraph L.3.4.2.2.2.

81. Sections C 3.1.4.1 through 3.1.3.1.3 imply that the Army will send the unit back for refurbishment or re-programming between tests.

a) Can you please clarify what is meant by, “Hardware exposed to chemical agents”?

b) Is “exposure” defined as physical contact that will contaminate the brassboards?

A: Exposure is defined as physical contact with CWAs and agents listed in Table 4 of the PRD that will contaminate the equipment.

82. Section L.2.5 states: “The Offeror’s proposal…must be printed.”

Will you please confirm that our submittal shall be submitted electronically, that you are only referring to the font size employed and that you are not requesting a printed copy?

A: This refers to the Font Size and we are not requesting a printed copy. L.2.5 has been updated.

83. Section L.3.4.2.1.2.7 is titled “Contract Type” and L.3.4.2.1.2.8 is titled “Type of

Contract”.

a) Is this a duplication?

b) If not, can you explain the difference between the two?

A: See response to Question #58

84. Section L.3.4.2.2.4 requests information regarding our Small Business Plans’ “past performance over the past five (5) years”. The first three sentences appear to be requesting performance data on all our contracts over the past five years. The fourth sentence, however, makes it sound like you are only requesting data for those contracts that we selected to use in Section L.3.4.2.2.1.

Will you please clarify whether you are asking for past performance on all contracts with Small Business Plans or only those cited in our L.3.4.2.2.1 Past Performance examples?

A: Section L.3.4.2.2.4. is referring to each contract referenced in the offeror’s past performance.

It is a subparagraph to Section L.3.4.2.2.1- The Offeror shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1 Contract Description.

85. Sections L.3.6.3.2 through L.3.6.3.3 have several typographical and formatting errors, making your intent ambiguous.

Can you please correct the typos and formatting on these three sections?

A: Section L.3.6.3 will be updated.

86. Section C.3.1.4.2.3 (MIL-STD-810G Testing) includes testing the extremes for Storage

Temperature but Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 does not list Storage Temperature among the PRD requirements being evaluated for the Final Prototypes.

Will Final Prototypes be subjected to a Storage Temperature test during TMRR phase?

A: See response to Question #40.

The following Q&As, that were posted to FBO on 19 May 2016, are now incorporated into this amendment 0002.

1. Will the prototypes used in On the Move, False Alarm, EOA, CCSI, and MIL-STD- 810 testing be returnable to the contractor between tests in the event the prototypes are in need of repair, maintenance, or requested changes by the Government since they are not scheduled for direct chemical exposure?

A. Yes, the prototypes may be returnable but only by Government discretion. The

Government must ensure changes between tests do not affect attributes of the prototype that could influence test results and the test timeline must remain unaffected. The PWS will be updated.

2. The updated Performance Work Statement (PWS) indicates specific uses for each prototype. Are all prototypes required to be identical?

A. Yes, the final prototypes must be identical and be capable to integrate with contractor designed vehicle mounting hardware. The PWS will be updated.

3. The updated Performance Requirements Document (PRD) remains aligned with the

Stryker NBCRV platform for requirements 3.2.1.3, 3.2.2.1.2, and 4.4.2.1.1. Are the prototypes be required to be capable of integration with the Stryker NBCRV platform?

A. Please refer to Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 of the Performance Work Statement for applicable PRD Requirements. PRD paragraphs 3.2.1.3, 3.2.2.1.2, and 4.4.2.1.1 will not apply in the TMRR phase and are only shown so that future requirements will be understood.

4. Based on requirements for integration with the platform CDPU (3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.5, 3.3.2.1.8, 3.3.2.8.7, 3.5.3.2, and Table 1), is the M998 HMMWV to be equipped with a

CDPU?

A. No. For the TMRR phase the prototypes do not need to integrate with a CDPU but will have to be CCSI compliant.

5. Will the dimensions outlined in Paragraph 3.2.2.1, Dimensions, apply to prototypes that are to be trailer mounted?

A. Please refer to Performance Work Statement Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 for applicable PRD Requirements. PRD Section 3.2.2.1 does not apply in the TMRR phase and is only shown so that future requirements will be understood.

6. Please provide dimensions for the rear door indicated in requirement 3.2.2.1.2.

A. Please refer to Performance Work Statement Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 for applicable PRD Requirements. PRD Section 3.2.2.1.2 does apply in the TMRR phase and is only shown so that future requirements will be understood. The rear opening is approximately 42.25 inches in height and approximately 20.25 inches in width.

7. PWS C.3.1.4.2 indicates a specific Final Prototype unit will be utilized for MIL-STD-810 tests. PWS C.3.1.4.2.3 indicates that the MIL-STD-810 test article will be the same unit that undergoes False Alarm Testing. Will a dedicated MIL-STD-810 unit be required?

A. One Final Prototype will be delivered for MIL-STD-810 testing. PWS section

3.1.4.2.3 will be revised to delete the sentence “The Government will conduct MIL- STD-810G testing following the False Alarm Test utilizing the same prototypes from False Alarm Testing.”

8. PWS Table 2 indicates the operating condition humidity tests will be performed for 240 hours. Will the system be operated continuously or periodically over the 240 hours? Will the system be required to operate for the full 240 hours without replenishment or maintenance?

A. The Government will remove the humidity test from the TMRR acquisition phase

PWS. The PWS will be updated. The humidity will also be removed from the Environmental challenge in section L.3.1.5.1 Brassboard Testing. Section L. will be updated.

9. Please provide the location, start date, and duration of the CCSI Demonstration in Table 3:

Schedule of Events of the PWS.

A. The Government anticipates the CCSI Demonstration location will be at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. The duration is approximately 1 day, conducted prior to on-the-move test approximately 526 CDAC. The Schedule of Events will be updated.

10. In Section L.3.4.2.2.3, what information does aforementioned refer to?

A. Aforementioned refers to all information required in paragraph L.3.4.2.2.2 as follows: “A detailed narrative for each contract cited and the similarities and relevance of that work to the work required by this solicitation, objectives achieved, and cost growths or schedule delays encountered. The Offeror shall provide copies of Quality Deficiency Reports and Corrective Actions submitted by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) office within the past five (5) years. For Government contracts that did not nor do not meet original requirements with regard to either cost, schedule, or technical performance the Offeror shall provide a brief explanation of the reasons(s) for such factor(s) and any corrective actions take to avoid recurrence.

11. In Section L.3.4.2.2.3, is the request for all terminations or only those for cause?

A. Section L.3.4.2.2.3 will be updated to clarify. The government is requesting all contract terminations for default in past five (5) years.

12. In L.3.4.2.2.4 it specifies to submit recent information on performance demonstrating compliance for FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219- 9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Is this only required for the Past Performance examples provided in the Past Performance Section 1?

A. Yes, this information is only required for the recent and relevant Past Performance examples provided in Section 1.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

AMENDMENT 0002 PWS

The PWS has been revised. This version supercedes all previous versions. Changes are highlighted.

SECTION C: PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

TITLE: CHEMICAL SURFACE DETECTOR (CSD)

C.1. SCOPE. This Performance Work Statement is designed to develop and mature a Chemical Surface Detector (CSD) to fulfill the CSD performance requirements. Requirements include Technical Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) where the contractor provides prototype hardware with Government testing, program, systems engineering and logistics support, and delivery of technical data (end-item products, software, and logistics).

C.1.1. Background. The Joint Project Manager for Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Contamination Avoidance (JPM NBC CA) is responsible for development, production, and fielding of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) detection systems. The CSD program is supported by the Stryker Nuclear Biological Chemical

Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV) Operational Requirements Document signed November 2007. The Developmental, Operation, Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) Beyond LRIP report stated that the Stryker NBCRV has limited chemical reconnaissance capability due to the performance deficiencies in the Dual Wheeled Sampling System (DWSS). The CSD will allow for the elimination of the DWSS. The JPM NBC CA is conducting the CSD program to upgrade the Stryker NBCRV Sensor Suite.

C.1.2. Objective. This contract details the activities that the contractor shall complete to build CSD prototypes for the TMRR acquisition phase. All prototypes shall be able to detect (threshold) and identify (objective) liquid and solid ground contamination while being operated on the move. The Government will conduct two phases of testing.

In the first phase, the contractor shall deliver two (2) Brassboard Prototypes for laboratory testing and evaluation. In the second phase, the contractor shall deliver four (4) Final Prototypes for an Early Operational Assesment and laboratory, on-the-move (on a M998 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle), MIL-STD-810, false alarm, and CCSI testing and evaluation.

C.2. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS. For purposes of this Performance Work Statement (PWS), “Required” means that the requirements contained in the directly cited document are contractually applicable to the extent specified. The term “For guidance only” means the document is not contractually applicable and is provided for guidance and information only. The documents cited below are “required” unless specifically identified as “For guidance only.” In the event of a conflict between the documents referenced herein and the contents of this PWS, the PWS shall take precedence. (Documents listed without web links are provided as attachments in Section J.)

C.2.1. Department of Defense Military Standards (MIL-STD).

C.2.1.1. MIL-STD-882E, System Safety, 11 May 2012.

C.2.1.2. MIL-STD-1472G, Design Criteria Standard Human Engineering, 11 January 2012.

C.2.1.3. MIL-STD-1474E, Design Criteria Standard, Noise Limits, 15 April 2015.

C.2.1.4. MIL-STD-810G, DoD Test Method Standard, 15 April 2014.

(The aforementioned MIL-STD’s are available from: http://quicksearch.dla.mil/.)

C.2.2. Department of Defense Military Handbooks (MIL-HDBK)

C.2.2.1. MIL-HDBK-2155, Failure Reporting, Analysis, and Corrective Action Taken, , http://quicksearch.dla.mil/

C.2.3. Government Documents.

C.2.3.1. Department of Defend Instruction (DODI) 5000.02, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, 7

January 2015. http://www.acq.osd.mil/fo/docs/500002p.pdf C.2.3.2. CSD Performance Requirements Document (PRD), 20 November 2015, Section J C.2.3.3. Department Of Defense Security Classification Guide for Non-Traditional Agent Defense, February 2013, Section J.

C.2.3.4. DODI 5220.22-M National Industrial Security Program (NISPOM), 18 March 2011.

http://www.nispom.org/NISPOM-download.html C.2.3.5. CSD Integrated Logistics Assessment (ILA), 28 January 2016, Section J C.2.3.6. Next Generation Chemical Detector (NGCD) Program Protection Plan, 30 May 2013, Section J.

C.2.3.7. NGCD Security Classification Guide, May 2013, Section J.

C.2.3.8. Risk Management Guide for DOD Acquisition, Sixth Edition (Version 1.0), August 2006, http://www.dau.mil/publications/publicationsDocs/RMG%206Ed%20Aug06.pdf C.2.3.9. Executive Order 12114, Environmental effects abroad of major Federal actions, 4 Janurary 1979, http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12114.html C.2.3.10. National Aerospace Standard (NAS) 411: Hazardous Materials Management Program, http://www.aia-aerospace.org/ C.2.3.11. Executive Order 13101: Greening the Government Thourgh Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal

Acquisition 16 September 1998, http://www.epa.gov/epp/pubs/13101.pdf C.2.3.12. DOD Manufacturing Readiness Level Deskbook, 02 July 2012, http://www.dodmrl.com/MRL_Deskbook_V2_2.pdf

C.2.3.13. Common Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear Sensor Interface Standard (CCSI), 15 February 2008, http://www.jpeocbd.osd.mil/packs/Default.aspx?pg=860

C.2.3.14. Army Regulation (AR) 525-13, United States Army Taining and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Force Protection Program, 12 December 1997, http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/regs/r525-13.pdf

C.2.3.15. AR 530-1, Operations Security, 26 September 2014, http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r530_1.pdf

C.2.4. Industry Documents.

C.2.4.1. GEIA-STD-0009: Reliability Program Standard, 01 August 2008, http://standards.sae.org/geiastd0009/ C.2.4.2. National Aerospace Standard (NAS) 411, 30 September 2013 (https://global.ihs.com).

C.3. REQUIREMENTS. The contractor, as an independent contractor and not as an agent of the Government, shall provide the necessary services, personnel, labor, facilities, materials, supplies, and equipment (except for Government-furnished property or information listed herein) to perform the following work:

C.3.1. TMRR Phase. The TMRR phase shall consist of building prototypes for two major test events, a Brassboard Prototype Test and a Final Prototype Test. The Brassboard Prototype Testing will consist of two rounds of algorithm development and a Blind Test for evaluation. The Final Prototype Testing will consist of chemical testing, false alarm testing, limited MIL-STD-810G testing, an Early Operational Assessment, and a data transfer demonstration. This phase also consists of engineering analysis, logistics analysis, and program management activities to ensure successful completion of the contract.

C.3.1.1. Prototypes.

C.3.1.1.1. The contractor shall produce two (2) Brassboard Prototypes with sufficient ancillary hardware, spares, repair parts, and consumables to meet the CSD PRD requirements for Brassboard Prototype Testing (para C.3.1.4.1).

C.3.1.1.2. The contractor shall upgrade or produce four (4) Final Prototypes, which may include refurbished Brassboard systems, with sufficient ancillary hardware, spares, repair parts, and consumables to meet the requirements for Final Prototype Testing (para C.3.1.4.2 Test). The Final Prototypes shall be able to integrate onto a M998 HMMWV and detect on the move. The integration may include, but not limited to, forward mounting, rear mounting, or mounted on a trailer.

C.3.1.1.3. The Brassboard and Final Prototypes shall meet the following CSD PRD requirements in accordance with (IAW) Table 1:

PRD Paragraph Requirement Description Brassboard PrototypeFinal Prototype

3.1 System description x x

3.1.1 Sensor…