Government_Response.pdf

Number Question Response

1 Section L.4.1.1.3 indicates the IMS may be submitted as a separate attachment but Table L-1 does not list a file name for it. Also, should the IMS be submitted in MS Project format or must it be in PDF format?

The assumption was that the attachment would be contained in the VOLUME I file. Docx or PDF format is required.

2 Section L.4.3.2 references an Atch 9, Cost Template.

Will the Government provide a draft workbook before the Final RFP is distributed to allow offerors to review and ask questions about it?

The final workbook will be distributed with the final

RFP

3 Section L.4.4.2.2.3 of the Past Performance Volume instructions appears to request information and available documentation about an offeror's Small Business Utilization performance for an entire business unit that is proposing as opposed to performance on specific contracts as described in L.4.4.2.2. Is this interpretation correct? If so, must this small business performance description for the business unit be contained within the 2 page limits defined in L 4 4 2 2 1?

L.4.4.2.2.3 refers to achieving goals established under Subcontracting Plans of prior contracts.

4 Section L.4.5.3 Small Business Participation Factor references an Atch 10, Small Business Participation Proposal Sample Format. Will the Government provide a draft Attachment 10 before the Final RFP is distributed to allow offerors to review and ask questions about it?

The final Attachment 10 will be provided with the final

RFP

5 In many paragraphs in Section L (4.1.1.10, 4.3.1.2, 4.3.1.8, 4.3.1.9, 4.3.2.4, 4.4.2.1.1, 4.4.2.1.3, 4.4.2.2.2, 4.4.2.2.5, 4.4.2.2.7, 4.5.2, 4.6.1.5, 4.6.1.19, 4.7.1) there is a reference to "subcontractor" or "subcontractors". Is there a definition or criteria for which suppliers are to be considered subcontractors (i.e., does a supplier of COTS parts fall under the definition of a subcontractor)?

The reference is with respect to major subcontractors. A major subcontractor is defined as one who will be providing critical services or who is responsible for efforts totaling at least 25% of the labor support cost.

6 How shall offeror's address Support and Ownership information in volume I without inclusion of cost data (Volume III)? Specifically, how do offerors address required content in Sec L.4.1.1.2 and L.4.1.2.3? Are percentages acceptables as referenced for justification in Sec L.4.1.1.5?

Within section L.4.1.1.2, Offerors can describe the approach to meeting requirements without including proposed cost information. The Government has deleted "within the proposed cost" from this section to reduce confusion. Similarly for Section L.4.1.2.3, Offerors can disscuss cost drivers for Support and Ownership, without listing actual cost data.

Percentages are acceptable

7 In L.4.1.2.6, offferors are requested to describe MOSA in context of software architecture that mitigates technology obsolescence and reduces life cycle ownership costs. In Section C, PWS, C.3.2.7.2, MOSA requirements additionally ask for interface standards, technologies, products or architectures? Should offerors only describe MOSA in context of software architectures?

Section L.4.1.2.6 has been revised as follows: "The Offeror shall describe its strategy to ensure a modular design that allows for future reconfiguration and addition of new capabilities without large-scale redesign of the system. The discussion shall include open interface standards, technologies, products or architectures that mitigate technology obsolescence and reduces life cycle ownership costs."

8 In L.4.1.3, is it possible the offerors citing JPEO-generated reports (classified or unclassified) simply cite and summarize the report, rather than duplicating sensitive or classified material and sending it back to the originating sponsor in referenced appendices? Is JPEO authorizing offerors to duplicate hard or electronic versions of test reports that are not directly owned by the offeror, but owned by JPEO due to prior associated NGCD program testing?

All the test reports cited, irrelevent of who generated them, shall be included in full as appendices.

Offerors should adhere to the distribution statements on the reports and make whatever approval requests are necessary to duplicate/share the report.

9 Is the Small Disadvantaged Business subcontracting goal 7% as stated in L.4.5.3.2 or 5% as stated in sections L.4.5.4.3 and L.4.5.4.4?

The goal is 5%. Section L.4.5.3.2 has been revised accordingly.

10 Is there a point of contact at MITRE that can facilitate a company to company NDA with respect to the non government reviewers cited within Section L.4.6.2?

Non-Government advisors participating in the Source Selection will be bound by the Office of Procurement Policy Act for disclosing information for all bidders. A company to company NDA is not necessary. If a company to company NDA is still desired, please contact Charles Laljer, laljer@mitre.org.

11 Reference Section L.1.3. We suggest the due date be a minimum of 45 days from release of a final RFP.

The Government will consider this suggestion.

12 Reference Section L.1.4. Is there a file size limitation for each file for the electronic submission?

There are some practical limits on file size. Users may have problems with files larger than ~100mb, due to problems with HTTP uploads. Offeror's will be fully responsible for ensuring their file sizes may be uploaded to FBO and should conduct any necessary research on this issue

13 Reference Section L.1.5. This paragraph references "2.1.3.1 and 2.1.3.2". What document are these citations referencing?

This section has been revised to refer to the subsections within L.1.5.

14 Reference Section L.1.5.1.2. This paragraph references L.2.1 for guidance on marking the DVD, however L.2.1 discusses exchanges with the offerors after Government receipt of proposals. Where is the correct referenced guidance for marking the DVDs?

This section has been revised to refer to L.3.1 and L.4.0, Table L-1.

15 Reference Section L.4.1.1.1. This paragraph states that an offeror "shall provide a technical description of the proposed system at the preliminary design stage".

Does this mean the preliminary design of the system needs to be complete? This requirement appears to contradict the PWS Paragraph C.3.1.8.1 where the preliminary design occurs 75 days after award.

In general, the expectation is that the majority of the preliminary design concept of the system being proposed for EMD, with respect to hardware and software, is complete at the time of proposal submission to the extent that a technical description of the proposed EMD system can be provided.

Section C.3.1.8.1 refers to the Preliminary Design Review (PDR), a technical review to be hosted by the contractor 75 days after contract award.

Aerosol Approach 1 of 3

16 Reference Section L.4.1.1.2. This paragraph states the Government is requesting offerors to "limit the proposal to meeting the threshold requirements, or only exceeding requirements if doing so results in reduced costs". This statement does not align with Section M, where the technical evaluation criteria to achieve an Excellent rating will be based on exceeding threshold requirements. Would a more accurate statement of the Government's requirement in this paragraph be that an offeror shall only propose exceeding threshold requirements when they can be met without adding additional cost, or when they will result in improving life cycle costs of the system?

This section has been revised as follows:

"The Offeror shall describe its approach to meet the requirements of the PSPEC within the proposed cost.

The Government is requesting the Offeror to limit the proposal to meeting the threshold requirements. An Offeror shall only propose exceeding the threshold requirements if doing so can be done without adding additional costs, or if doing so results in reduced costs to the system either in development, production, or sustainment (for example, Offerors have an opportunity to exceed a threshold requirement if there is positive affect on the Support and Ownership burden). The proposal shall include a summary of performance requirements that can be met for each hardware delivery."

17 Reference Section L.4.1.1.7. This paragraph states that the offeror shall "provide a detailed approach for [...] testing required to meet requirements, and the impact these events may have on cost and/or schedule which include any recommended schedule revisions resulting from limitations and shortcomings". How should offerors provide this information? Should offerors provide an alternate/separate proposal for additional testing? With regards to cost, how should the additional costs be accounted for in a proposal?

How should offerors cost the Government facility test time? Will the Government provide an estimate for a cost/day for use of the Government test facility?

Additionally, since cost information may not be provided in the technical volume, should impacts to cost be reported as a percent increase in cost in the technical volume? How will any additional cost and schedule impacts proposed be evaluated across

Offerors should submit one proposal that includes a detailed approach for engineering/software development and testing required to meet requirements. This detailed approach should also address additional testing/spectral data collection being recommended by an offeror for their system to meet requirements. Additional cost should be reflected in terms of hardware and labor required to support additional testing if needed and should be included in the cost proposal. Costs associated with use of a Governement Test Facility for additional testing are outside the cost of the contract and should not be included.

18 Section L.4.1.2.9 states "the Data Rights and Licenses offered shall be provided as an attachment to the support and ownership volume , but shall not count against the page count provided in Table L-1." Should the word "volume" be "section", as Support and Ownership is Section B within Volume I?

This section has been revised further since the draft released on 4/28/17. Support and Ownership is now addressed in Volume II. There are no longer any sub-sections or sub-factors.

19 Section L.4.1.2.9.2 states "the Offeror shall attach to its offer a list identifying all noncommercial technical data (TS), software (CS), CSD, etc." Is this requirement part of the page count?

No. This section has been modified to clarify that the attachment shall not count against the page count provided in Table L-1.

20 Section L.4.1.2.9.3 states "the Offeror shall attach to its offer a statement entitled 'Supplemental Information— Noncommercial Technical Data, Noncommercial Computer Software, Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation' for each item of noncommerical TD, CS, or CSD, that the Offeror asserts should be delivered with specifically negotiated license rights or other non-standard rights". Is this requirement part of the page count?

No. This section has been modified to clarify that the attachment shall not count against the page count provided in Table L-1.

21 Section L.4.1.2.9.4 states "the Offeror shall attach to its offer a list, entitled 'Commercial TD, Commerical CS, and Commerical CSD-Government Use Restrictions'[…]" Is this requirement part of the page count?

No. This section has been modified to clarify that the attachment shall not count against the page count provided in Table L-1.

22 In Section L.4.3.1.4, the Governemnt requires offerors to state if they have an approved Earned Value Management System (EVMS). Is an approved EVMS required for all prime contracts awarded under this solicitation? Will the requirment for an approved EVMS apply to major subcontractors proposed by offerors?

Offerors are required to have an EVMS that complies with American National Standards Institure/Electronic Industries Alliance Standard (ANSI/EIA)-748 and DFARS 234.201(1)(i). This requirement may apply to subcontracts if valued at over $20M.

23 In Sections L.4.3.1.6.1 and L.4.7.4, the Government asks offerors to propose labor categories that are specific to job functions. Will the Government accept an offeror’s bid category rates (i.e., category rates representing a weighted average of a defined range of employee salaries) if that is the offeror's estimating methodology and standard accounting practice, and such rates are on file at DCAA?

For the referenced sections, the Labor Category Descriptor is being requested (Sr. Chemist”, “Jr.

Environmental Scientist”, and “Mid-Level Physicist”) to understand the functional expertise being planned to execute the contract.

24 Section L.4.3.2.6 specifies 500 hours per year as a usage estimate for costing purposes for consumables and spares. Should the usage estimate match PSpec Section 6.1 as either 432 hours for peacetime or 2160 hours for surge? Is the 500 hour value just for cost estimating purposes?

Please use 500 hours for cost estimating purposes.

25 Section L.4.4.2.1.1 defines "recent" as any contract that has taken place in the last three years. Given the technology development phase of this activity lasted three years, would the Government consider changing this definintion to five years to allow inclusion of programs prior to the technology development phase such as M3TD?

Efforts taking place within the last three years provides the Government enough past performance information representing recent performance.

26 Secetion L.4.6.2.1.2 states "Offeror shall include written consent as outlined in L.4.6.1.18 for the release of information to Non-Government Advisors [...] or provide written objection to disclose." Do all subcontractors an offeror proposes also need to provide written consent or objection to release of information?

Technical information and data submitted to the Government in response to this solicitation will be released to non-Government personnel for review and analysis. If the Prime Offeror's consent does not cover release of subcontractor information provided in response to this solicitation, than that subcontractor's written consent is also requested

Aerosol Approach 2 of 3

27 Section L.1.5.1.1

a. What information is included in the AVCAD classified solicitation documentation?

b. Can a cleared contractor receive the information through appropriate channels prior to release of the

RFP?

c. If the information is only available in the reading room and classified note taking is not allowed, is unclassified note taking allowed?

a. Classified AVCAD requirements.

b. No.

c. Unclassified note taking is allowed.

28 Section L.4.0 Proposal Content . In the previous draft, Section A. Technical Approach was listed with a page limit of 50 pages. This limitation has been reduced to 35 pages. We respectfully request the Government consider increasing the page limitation back to its original 50 pages in order to adequately address all requirements in the PSPEC and solicitation.

The instructions and evaluation criteria have been modified to justify the page reduction.

29 Section L.4.1.1.2 states “The Offeror shall describe its approach to meet the requirements of the PSPEC within the proposed cost. The Government is requesting the Offeror to limit the proposal to meeting the threshold requirements . . .”

a. It is assumed that this statement is referring to Section 3.0 Requirements of the PSPEC, and Sections

4.0 – 6.0, and Appendix A do not need further discussion and are provided as additional information.

Please confirm this assumption is correct and that offerors need only to discuss Section 3.0 of the PSPEC in this specific area of our response.

Confirmed. Offerors need only to discuss Section 3.0 of the PSPEC pertaining to Section L.4.1.1.2.

30 Section L.4.1.1.10 Property Management Plan . Will the Government please consider not counting the Property Management Plan towards overall page count of Section A and permitting offerors to provide it as an attachment to the response?

The Government has modified Section L.4.1.1.10 to allow the PMP to be submitted as an attachment to Section A and not count toward the overall page count.

31 Section L.4.3.1.7 Indirect Expense Rates.

a. If a bidder does not have a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement or a Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation, how will the Government evaluate the bidder’s proposed indirect rate as accurate and reasonable using support the bidder has provided?

b. Is it necessary that the proposed indirect rates must equal to or be an average of historical indirect rates?

Offerors should propose rates that most accurately represent future costs. Due to the inherent nature of trying to predict future costs based on, in some instances, varying types of information; there is no one method that the Government can commit to use to determine if proposed indirect costs are realistic.

Having said that, some methods that may be considered, among others, include 1) a Naïve Forecast: This method could be appropriate when there is a stable expense pool, allocation base, and no expectation of dramatic shifts in either, or when the expense pool consists of mostly variable costs that are expected to be highly correlated with the allocation base; 2) Regression Analysis: This method could be appropriate when there is expected to be a material change in an allocation base (x) and an appreciable portion of the expense pool (y) consists

32 Section L.4.3.1.10 Equipment, Materials, and ODCs .

Should all supported documentation (vendor/supplier quotes, catalog pricing, historical pricing documentation) for Equipment, Materials, and ODCs be included in Volume III Cost/Price or provided to the Government as an attachment to Volume III?

The documentation could be submitted in either form.

Having everything required all in one document is convenient from an evaluation standpoint, but sometimes this causes adverse effects as file sizes increase.

33 Section L.4.3.2.5.1 Initial Target Cost. Please provide additional information on the second identified method to provide Initial Target Cost, specifically “manually input the total initial target cost at each production point”.

By default there are equations in Cells D14:D21 use a “unit” cost improvement curve to calculate total initial target costs for specific production points using the equation shown to the right of this answer;

however, Offerors have the flexibility to override these calculations. If for example $10 million is entered as the total cost of 3,200 units with an 88% slope, the worksheet will calculate a total initial target cost of $331,386 for an order of 50 units; however, an Offeror may decide to use an alternative estimating technique and enter a different total initial target cost (for instance $350,000), ignoring (typing over) the default equation.

Aerosol Approach 3 of 3

1 Is JPEO's intent to issue AVCAD requirements as a Task Order under the JE RDAP ID/IQ?

AVCAD requirements will be issued as a standalone RFP.

2 If JPEO is now isssuing AVCAD under the JE RDAP ID/IQ, does JPEO intend to issue the TO as Full & Open?

AVCAD requirements will be issued as a full and open RFP.

3 Does JPEO plan to conduct a downselect if multiple offerors are awarded, or will each awarded offeror have EMD, LRIP, and FRP options in their base contract that the JPEO will choose to either exercise or not?

There will be no "down-select" or future competition between contractors if two contractors are selected for award. The Government's intent is to award the EMD options for both contracts. After that point, if successful EMD test results are obtained under both contracts, the LRIP and FRP options may be exercised under both contracts. In this senario (e.g. two contract awards and successful EMD tests for both contractors), the Government reserves the right to either obtain all LRIP and FRP production items from a single contractor or to divide production options between contractors based based on (i) price, (ii) sustainment cost, (iii) performance against the PSPEC and any mission requirments to maintain multiple sources of supply. The Government intends to evaluation and exercise options that are in the best interest of the Government inaccordance with the FAR

17.207 considerations. Contractors may be asked to submit revised pricing for LRIP and FRP options within established ceilings to support the Government's decision.

4 What is the basis the JPEO plans to use to decide whether or not to execute contract options?

See above answer.

5 Will this selection criteria be further definded within Section L and Section M?

No. See above answer. There is no "selection criteria" for exercising options. There is a reasonable likelihood that any given option may be awarded and the Government will use the procedures in FAR 17.207 to determine if and when to exercise options.

6 Will the JPEO consider releasing the AVCAD TEMP along with RFP to facilitate offeror's preparation for EMD testing events given the aggressive schedule?

No, the TEMP will never be released to the contractors. The RFP contains sufficient information for planning purposes. A detailed test schedule will be available post-contract award.

7 Will the JPEO consider releasing the schedule for CDRL deliverables in advance, in particular those due with RFP in efforts to allow offerors to plan resources accordingly for the proposal submission?

CDRL DD FORM 1423-2 will be released with the final RFP.

8 How does the Government want test reports from programs such at M3TD and the NGCD TD phase submitted? Should the unclassified versions of the test reports be submitted and the key code provided as a classified document, or should full classified test reports with all agents identified be submitted through a separate method (i.e., other than the web submission portal)?

The offeror may do either. Please refer to L.1.5, L.4.1.3.1 and L.4.1.3.2.

9 Does the Government anticipate that the FRP bid will be firm? Would the Government consider the use of ROMs at this time for the later options?

ROMs are not acceptable. The price structure of FPI(S) means these prices may be re-negotiated prior to option exercise.

10 When does the Government anticipate Option 2 will begin- concurrent with the base or with Option 1?

Several of the activities would need to be started early to have the best chance to influence the final design.

The Government anticipates awarding Option 2 with the base.

11 When will the Government provide the draft of all sections of the anticipated solicitation, including terms, conditions, special clauses, attachment etc…., for contractor evaluation and adequate consideration of compliance, and the impact to scope to meet program requirements?

The remaining sections will be provided with the final solicitation.

General page 1 of 1 as a separate attachment but Table L-1 does not list a file name for it. Also, should the IMS be submitted in MS Project format or must it be in PDF format?

The assumption was that the attachment would be contained in the VOLUME I file. Docx or PDF format is required.

2 Section L.4.3.2 references an Atch 9, Cost Template.

Will the Government provide a draft workbook before the Final RFP is distributed to allow offerors to review and ask questions about it?

The final workbook will be distributed with the final

RFP

3 Section L.4.4.2.2.3 of the Past Performance Volume instructions appears to request information and available documentation about an offeror's Small Business Utilization performance for an entire business unit that is proposing as opposed to performance on specific contracts as described in L.4.4.2.2. Is this interpretation correct? If so, must this small business performance description for the business unit be contained within the 2 page limits defined in L 4 4 2 2 1?

L.4.4.2.2.3 refers to achieving goals established under Subcontracting Plans of prior contracts.

4 Section L.4.5.3 Small Business Participation Factor references an Atch 10, Small Business Participation Proposal Sample Format. Will the Government provide a draft Attachment 10 before the Final RFP is distributed to allow offerors to review and ask questions about it?

The final Attachment 10 will be provided with the final

RFP

5 In many paragraphs in Section L (4.1.1.10, 4.3.1.2, 4.3.1.8, 4.3.1.9, 4.3.2.4, 4.4.2.1.1, 4.4.2.1.3, 4.4.2.2.2, 4.4.2.2.5, 4.4.2.2.7, 4.5.2, 4.6.1.5, 4.6.1.19, 4.7.1) there is a reference to "subcontractor" or "subcontractors". Is there a definition or criteria for which suppliers are to be considered subcontractors (i.e., does a supplier of COTS parts fall under the definition of a subcontractor)?

The reference is with respect to major subcontractors. A major subcontractor is defined as one who will be providing critical services or who is responsible for efforts totaling at least 25% of the labor support cost.

6 How shall offeror's address Support and Ownership information in volume I without inclusion of cost data (Volume III)? Specifically, how do offerors address required content in Sec L.4.1.1.2 and L.4.1.2.3? Are percentages acceptables as referenced for justification in Sec L.4.1.1.5?

Within section L.4.1.1.2, Offerors can describe the approach to meeting requirements without including proposed cost information. The Government has deleted "within the proposed cost" from this section to reduce confusion. Similarly for Section L.4.1.2.3, Offerors can disscuss cost drivers for Support and Ownership, without listing actual cost data.

Percentages are acceptable

7 In L.4.1.2.6, offferors are requested to describe MOSA in context of software architecture that mitigates technology obsolescence and reduces life cycle ownership costs. In Section C, PWS, C.3.2.7.2, MOSA requirements additionally ask for interface standards, technologies, products or architectures? Should offerors only describe MOSA in context of software architectures?

Section L.4.1.2.6 has been revised as follows: "The Offeror shall describe its strategy to ensure a modular design that allows for future reconfiguration and addition of new capabilities without large-scale redesign of the system. The discussion shall include open interface standards, technologies, products or architectures that mitigate technology obsolescence and reduces life cycle ownership costs."

8 In L.4.1.3, is it possible the offerors citing JPEO-generated reports (classified or unclassified) simply cite and summarize the report, rather than duplicating sensitive or classified material and sending it back to the originating sponsor in referenced appendices? Is JPEO authorizing offerors to duplicate hard or electronic versions of test reports that are not directly owned by the offeror, but owned by JPEO due to prior associated NGCD program testing?

All the test reports cited, irrelevent of who generated them, shall be included in full as appendices.

Offerors should adhere to the distribution statements on the reports and make whatever approval requests are necessary to duplicate/share the report.

9 Is the Small Disadvantaged Business subcontracting goal 7% as stated in L.4.5.3.2 or 5% as stated in sections L.4.5.4.3 and L.4.5.4.4?

The goal is 5%. Section L.4.5.3.2 has been revised accordingly.

10 Is there a point of contact at MITRE that can facilitate a company to company NDA with respect to the non government reviewers cited within Section L.4.6.2?

Non-Government advisors participating in the Source Selection will be bound by the Office of Procurement Policy Act for disclosing information for all bidders. A company to company NDA is not necessary. If a company to company NDA is still desired, please contact Charles Laljer, laljer@mitre.org.

11 Reference Section L.1.3. We suggest the due date be a minimum of 45 days from release of a final RFP.

The Government will consider this suggestion.

12 Reference Section L.1.4. Is there a file size limitation for each file for the electronic submission?

There are some practical limits on file size. Users may have problems with files larger than ~100mb, due to problems with HTTP uploads. Offeror's will be fully responsible for ensuring their file sizes may be uploaded to FBO and should conduct any necessary research on this issue

13 Reference Section L.1.5. This paragraph references "2.1.3.1 and 2.1.3.2". What document are these citations referencing?

This section has been revised to refer to the subsections within L.1.5.

14 Reference Section L.1.5.1.2. This paragraph references L.2.1 for guidance on marking the DVD, however L.2.1 discusses exchanges with the offerors after Government receipt of proposals. Where is the correct referenced guidance for marking the DVDs?

This section has been revised to refer to L.3.1 and L.4.0, Table L-1.

15 Reference Section L.4.1.1.1. This paragraph states that an offeror "shall provide a technical description of the proposed system at the preliminary design stage".

Does this mean the preliminary design of the system needs to be complete? This requirement appears to contradict the PWS Paragraph C.3.1.8.1 where the preliminary design occurs 75 days after award.

In general, the expectation is that the majority of the preliminary design concept of the system being proposed for EMD, with respect to hardware and software, is complete at the time of proposal submission to the extent that a technical description of the proposed EMD system can be provided.

Section C.3.1.8.1 refers to the Preliminary Design Review (PDR), a technical review to be hosted by the

Performance Specification 1 of 3 to meeting the threshold requirements, or only exceeding requirements if doing so results in reduced costs". This statement does not align with Section M, where the technical evaluation criteria to achieve an Excellent rating will be based on exceeding threshold requirements. Would a more accurate statement of the Government's requirement in this paragraph be that an offeror shall only propose exceeding threshold requirements when they can be met without adding additional cost, or when they will result in improving life cycle costs of the system?

This section has been revised as follows:

"The Offeror shall describe its approach to meet the requirements of the PSPEC within the proposed cost.

The Government is requesting the Offeror to limit the proposal to meeting the threshold requirements. An Offeror shall only propose exceeding the threshold requirements if doing so can be done without adding additional costs, or if doing so results in reduced costs to the system either in development, production, or sustainment (for example, Offerors have an opportunity to exceed a threshold requirement if there is positive affect on the Support and Ownership burden). The proposal shall include a summary of performance requirements that can be met for each hardware delivery."

17 Reference Section L.4.1.1.7. This paragraph states that the offeror shall "provide a detailed approach for [...] testing required to meet requirements, and the impact these events may have on cost and/or schedule which include any recommended schedule revisions resulting from limitations and shortcomings". How should offerors provide this information? Should offerors provide an alternate/separate proposal for additional testing? With regards to cost, how should the additional costs be accounted for in a proposal?

How should offerors cost the Government facility test time? Will the Government provide an estimate for a cost/day for use of the Government test facility?

Additionally, since cost information may not be provided in the technical volume, should impacts to cost be reported as a percent increase in cost in the technical volume? How will any additional cost and schedule impacts proposed be evaluated across

Offerors should submit one proposal that includes a detailed approach for engineering/software development and testing required to meet requirements. This detailed approach should also address additional testing/spectral data collection being recommended by an offeror for their system to meet requirements. Additional cost should be reflected in terms of hardware and labor required to support additional testing if needed and should be included in the cost proposal. Costs associated with use of a Governement Test Facility for additional testing are outside the cost of the contract and should not be included.

18 Section L.4.1.2.9 states "the Data Rights and Licenses offered shall be provided as an attachment to the support and ownership volume , but shall not count against the page count provided in Table L-1." Should the word "volume" be "section", as Support and Ownership is Section B within Volume I?

This section has been revised further since the draft released on 4/28/17. Support and Ownership is now addressed in Volume II. There are no longer any sub-sections or sub-factors.

19 Section L.4.1.2.9.2 states "the Offeror shall attach to its offer a list identifying all noncommercial technical data (TS), software (CS), CSD, etc." Is this requirement part of the page count?

No. This section has been modified to clarify that the attachment shall not count against the page count provided in Table L-1.

20 Section L.4.1.2.9.3 states "the Offeror shall attach to its offer a statement entitled 'Supplemental Information— Noncommercial Technical Data, Noncommercial Computer Software, Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation' for each item of noncommerical TD, CS, or CSD, that the Offeror asserts should be delivered with specifically negotiated license rights or other non-standard rights". Is this requirement part of the page count?

No. This section has been modified to clarify that the attachment shall not count against the page count provided in Table L-1.

21 Section L.4.1.2.9.4 states "the Offeror shall attach to its offer a list, entitled 'Commercial TD, Commerical CS, and Commerical CSD-Government Use Restrictions'[…]" Is this requirement part of the page count?

No. This section has been modified to clarify that the attachment shall not count against the page count provided in Table L-1.

22 In Section L.4.3.1.4, the Governemnt requires offerors to state if they have an approved Earned Value Management System (EVMS). Is an approved EVMS required for all prime contracts awarded under this solicitation? Will the requirment for an approved EVMS apply to major subcontractors proposed by offerors?

Offerors are required to have an EVMS that complies with American National Standards Institure/Electronic Industries Alliance Standard (ANSI/EIA)-748 and DFARS 234.201(1)(i). This requirement may apply to subcontracts if valued at over $20M.

23 In Sections L.4.3.1.6.1 and L.4.7.4, the Government asks offerors to propose labor categories that are specific to job functions. Will the Government accept an offeror’s bid category rates (i.e., category rates representing a weighted average of a defined range of employee salaries) if that is the offeror's estimating methodology and standard accounting practice, and such rates are on file at DCAA?

For the referenced sections, the Labor Category Descriptor is being requested (Sr. Chemist”, “Jr.

Environmental Scientist”, and “Mid-Level Physicist”) to understand the functional expertise being planned to execute the contract.

24 Section L.4.3.2.6 specifies 500 hours per year as a usage estimate for costing purposes for consumables and spares. Should the usage estimate match PSpec Section 6.1 as either 432 hours for peacetime or 2160 hours for surge? Is the 500 hour value just for cost estimating purposes?

Please use 500 hours for cost estimating purposes.

25 Section L.4.4.2.1.1 defines "recent" as any contract that has taken place in the last three years. Given the technology development phase of this activity lasted three years, would the Government consider changing this definintion to five years to allow inclusion of programs prior to the technology development phase such as M3TD?

Efforts taking place within the last three years provides the Government enough past performance information representing recent performance.

26 Secetion L.4.6.2.1.2 states "Offeror shall include written consent as outlined in L.4.6.1.18 for the release of information to Non-Government Advisors [...] or provide written objection to disclose." Do all subcontractors an offeror proposes also need to provide written consent or objection to release of information?

Technical information and data submitted to the Government in response to this solicitation will be released to non-Government personnel for review and analysis. If the Prime Offeror's consent does not cover release of subcontractor information provided in response to this solicitation, than that

Performance Specification 2 of 3 classified solicitation documentation?

b. Can a cleared contractor receive the information through appropriate channels prior to release of the

RFP?

c. If the information is only available in the reading room and classified note taking is not allowed, is unclassified note taking allowed?

a. Classified AVCAD requirements.

b. No.

c. Unclassified note taking is allowed.

28 Section L.4.0 Proposal Content . In the previous draft, Section A. Technical Approach was listed with a page limit of 50 pages. This limitation has been reduced to 35 pages. We respectfully request the Government consider increasing the page limitation back to its original 50 pages in order to adequately address all requirements in the PSPEC and solicitation.

The instructions and evaluation criteria have been modified to justify the page reduction.

29 Section L.4.1.1.2 states “The Offeror shall describe its approach to meet the requirements of the PSPEC within the proposed cost. The Government is requesting the Offeror to limit the proposal to meeting the threshold requirements . . .”

a. It is assumed that this statement is referring to Section 3.0 Requirements of the PSPEC, and Sections

4.0 – 6.0, and Appendix A do not need further discussion and are provided as additional information.

Please confirm this assumption is correct and that offerors need only to discuss Section 3.0 of the PSPEC in this specific area of our response.

Confirmed. Offerors need only to discuss Section 3.0 of the PSPEC pertaining to Section L.4.1.1.2.

30 Section L.4.1.1.10 Property Management Plan . Will the Government please consider not counting the Property Management Plan towards overall page count of Section A and permitting offerors to provide it as an attachment to the response?

The Government has modified Section L.4.1.1.10 to allow the PMP to be submitted as an attachment to Section A and not count toward the overall page count.

31 Section L.4.3.1.7 Indirect Expense Rates.

a. If a bidder does not have a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement or a Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation, how will the Government evaluate the bidder’s proposed indirect rate as accurate and reasonable using support the bidder has provided?

b. Is it necessary that the proposed indirect rates must equal to or be an average of historical indirect rates?

Offerors should propose rates that most accurately represent future costs. Due to the inherent nature of trying to predict future costs based on, in some instances, varying types of information; there is no one method that the Government can commit to use to determine if proposed indirect costs are realistic.

Having said that, some methods that may be considered, among others, include 1) a Naïve Forecast: This method could be appropriate when there is a stable expense pool, allocation base, and no expectation of dramatic shifts in either, or when the expense pool consists of mostly variable costs that are expected to be highly correlated with the allocation base; 2) Regression Analysis: This method could be appropriate when there is expected to be a material change in an allocation base (x) and an appreciable portion of the expense pool (y) consists

32 Section L.4.3.1.10 Equipment, Materials, and ODCs .

Should all supported documentation (vendor/supplier quotes, catalog pricing, historical pricing documentation) for Equipment, Materials, and ODCs be included in Volume III Cost/Price or provided to the Government as an attachment to Volume III?

The documentation could be submitted in either form.

Having everything required all in one document is convenient from an evaluation standpoint, but sometimes this causes adverse effects as file sizes increase.

33 Section L.4.3.2.5.1 Initial Target Cost. Please provide additional information on the second identified method to provide Initial Target Cost, specifically “manually input the total initial target cost at each production point”.

By default there are equations in Cells D14:D21 use a “unit” cost improvement curve to calculate total initial target costs for specific production points using the equation shown to the right of this answer;

however, Offerors have the flexibility to override these calculations. If for example $10 million is entered as the total cost of 3,200 units with an 88% slope, the worksheet will calculate a total initial target cost of $331,386 for an order of 50 units; however, an Offeror may decide to use an alternative estimating technique and enter a different total initial

Performance Specification 3 of 3

1 Paragraph C.7.2 of the PWS defines the delivery of the 60 LRIP 2 systems as commencing "five months after contract option award at a rate of ten AVCADs per month." On the other hand, there are no expected delivery dates or rates defined for any of the FRP quantities (C.8 - C.13). Given the potentially large total quantities for these options ("up to 11,635"), delivery times and rates would allow us to do better production planning and pricing

FRP production quantities may be divided equally over 12 months. The lead time from option award to first delivery is negotiable.

2 Paragraph C.7.1.1 of the PWS requires delivery of 68 LRIP 1 systems "4 months after option award." Does this mean that all 68 systems should be delivered at one time or is there a preferred delivery rate per month?

All 68 systems should be delivered at one time.

3 Regarding Section C.4.4, would the Government consider extending the first delivery of the six prototypes with the two different front ends?

Section C.4.4 has been revised to extend delivery of CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 to six (6) months after contract award

4 Regarding Section C.4.5, are the hours of testing listed for a single system or total time?

The hours are to test a single system.

5 Option 1. When will Option 1 be exercised? Introducing an option this early may disrupt the continuity of the sensor development.

The intent is to award this option either after customer testing, or after the CDR.

6 Regarding C.5.1.1, would the government consider extending the four-month delivery schedule since the final front-end design will only be decided at the conclusion of the base period?

The Government will not delay the initial delivery of the First AVCAD EMD Hardware at this time. The Government has revised this section to break up the delivery, with 24 due 4 months after option award, and 36 due 6 months after option award.

7 The conclusion of the base period appears to be a down-select, is this accurate? If so, what are the criteria for the down-select?

This is not a competition. The intent is to award the EMD option for both contracts if customer test results indicate promising performance, to increase potential for at least one system successfully completing EMD. See answer to question #3 on the General Tab.

8 Will the NGCD Program Documents referenced in Section C.2.6 be released with the AVCAD RFP?

Yes.

9 Will the NGCD 1 SEP be released with the AVCAD RFP? Per PWS section C.3.2.1 - offerors require access to these materials in efforts to prepare level of efforts and CDRLs? (C.2.6.3, Section J).

Yes.

10 Which version of CCSI standard is applicable for the requirements stated within C.3.2.6.2 CCSI Support? How are vendors to price level of effort required for compliance with out having an understanding of what requirement they are working towards?

The current version of the CCSI standard is v1.1.2. The vendors can price level of effort based on implementing XML output or based on previous CCSI work of implementing mandatory channels; mandatory and optional commands.

11 Will JPEO provide a copy, or reference link to the current version of the referenced CCSI standard per C.3.2.6.2 CCSI Support?

Yes. A package of the CCSI standard with test tools and implementation guide is available. Offerors may submit a request to the Contracting Officer.

12 What system(s) and/or platforms explictly is AVCAD to be interoperable with per requirements stated in C.3.2.7.1?

See C.14

13 In C.4.4.- It states that CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 shall be delivered four (4) months after contract option award. Is there an option period that will be exercised with each awarded offeror(ors) post contract award? When does this option get exercised? From an administrative perspective, four months after contract award is agressive for scheduling, if there is another contracting option to occur to support additional contract options the schedule may have a lot of risk from USG in execution

The word "option" in this section was a typo. This section has been revised as follows:

" CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 shall be delivered six (6) months after contract award.

14 What rights does the USG desire in conjunction with deliverables associated with C.6.6.3.2; the differences between limited and unlimited affect offeror pricing?

The Government is not dicating that offerors propose any specific level rights in Technical Data (TD), Computer Software (CS) and Computer Software Documentation (CSD).

However, offerors must understand that the Government will be evaluating the extent to which the proposed level of rights "ensure unimpeded, innovative, and cost effective production, operation, maintenance (to include procurement of spare/repair parts), and upgrade of the AVCAD system throughout its life cycle; allow for open and competitive procurement of AVCAD enhancements; and permit the transfer of the AVCAD non-proprietary object code and source code to other contractors for use on other systems or platforms." See Section M.

15 Are there requirements for courses in C.6.8.3. terms of number of participants attending and course duration?

This section has been revised to include the following, "For proposal purposes, estimate based on a 20 participant class size at 4-hour duration."

16 Will the JPEO consider providing the other ICDs as referenced in C.14 for the platform systems for integration with RFP to allow offerors to take into consideration this information as appropriate in their AVCAD system design work ? Shipboard ICD is provided within the Performance Specficiation. Will applicable platform ICDs for USMC, USA, and USAF likewise be provided?

For platforms where the ICD is unavailable, please refer to the PSPEC, sections 3.2.2, 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 for interface requirements.

17 For LRIP and FRP quantities, is there a required production minimum/maximum delivery order per month for the quantities in total, or can is it acceptable to have offerors support delivery of the total quantities within the period of performance of the option year at their own discretion based on their manufacturering procedures?

The LRIP delivery schedule requirements are stated in the PWS. FRP production quantities may be divided equally over 12 months.

18 Against what criteria will the algorithm be evaluated? System algorithm performance will be evaluated against the requirements of the PSPEC.

19 In Paragraph C.4.4, it states that six (6) units for customer testing (CLINs 0001 and 0002) should be delivered four months after contract option award. With start up activities, start of work meeting, PDR, and CDR also occurring in this timeframe, this is a very challenging schedule to meet. Would the Government consider extending the schedule to 6 months to reduce schedule risk?

Section C.4.4 has been revised to extend delivery of CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 to six (6) months after contract award.

20 In Paragraph C.4.5, it states that there will be 160 hours of chamber testing. Is this just aerosol testing, or does it include vapor testing as well? If yes, will the Government provide an estimated breakdown between aerosol and vapor testing?

The testing will include both aerosol and vapor testing. The test matrix has not been finalized.

PWS page 1 of 3

21 In Paragraph C.5.1.1, it states 60 AVCAD systems will be delivered four months after Option 1 award. This is a very aggressive schedule, considering testing at ECBC and down select of the aerosol approach would have to be completed first. Since this is the first ramp up of volume, this aggressive schedule would result in additional costs for rush fees, etc., if executed as currently proposed.

Would the Government consider allowing delivery between six-eight months after option award to allow for time to address engineering changes with a mechanism for addressing long lead items?

The Government will not delay the initial delivery of the First AVCAD EMD Hardware at this time. The Government has revised this section to break up the delivery, with 24 due 4 months after option award, and 36 due 6 months after option award.

22 In Paragraph C.7.1.1, it states the first 68 LRIP units be delivered four months after Option 3 award. This schedule does not allow for significant engineering updates to be implemented to address shortcomings in PQT if they are identified as necessary. Would the Government consider allowing delivery between six-eight months after option award to allow for time to address engineering changes with a mechanism for addressing long lead items?

Additional time needed for LRIP deliveries can be negotiated as necessary, based on PQT results.

23 For the FRP options, will the Government provide an estimated number of units per month that should be assumed?

Unit per months should be calculated from the total units per year divided by 12 months.

24 C.3.1.8.2 Critical Design Review (CDR). As referenced in Section 3.1.8.2, CDR will be 30 days after Customer Test data delivery.

When will that test data delivery take place with respect to the providing of systems for…