Government_response_to_Questions_27_July_2017.pdf

Number Question Response

1 In Attachment 009 ‐ Are the quantity ranges for AVCAD units to reflect quantities per each individual purchase order received that option year?

The appropriate quantity range would be based on each instance where the Government buys produced units (it would not be based on a cumulative amount for the option period). That said, the successive target cost (if FPIF) could be different for each.

2 In Attachment 009‐ Are costs only required to be provided within the CLIN structure as outlined within

Attachment 009?

Breakouts by cost elements are required for CPIF CLINs. For FPI(S) and FFP CLINs no breakout beyond those specified in Section L and the Cost Template is required.

3 Cost ‐ A02 Attachment 09 Cost Template – In order to provide an adequate cost response to the Government, all unit and total prices within Section B, all CLINs and

Sub‐CLINs, including the contract type for each

(CPIF/FPI, etc.), need to be reflected within Attachment

09.

a. Will the Government please revise Attachment 9, so that all required CLINs and Sub‐CLINs, may be separately priced? This change will enable all potential vendors to map Attachment 09 pricing by line item back to Section B.

The Government consolidated summary tabs into one tab that should facilitate mapping proposed prices to section B with ease.

Some (sub)CLINs will not have a defined cost, profit, and price; such as for AVCAD production where the exact quantity to be purchased has not yet been defined.

4 Cost ‐ Full Rate Production (FRP) CLINs –

All expected costs should be known after LRIP enabling the contractor and Government to agree on a Firm

Fixed Price per unit, for a set of full rate production points.

Will the Government please consider modifying all

CLINS referencing AVCAD Full Rate Production, from a

Fixed Price Incentive (FPI) to Firm Fixed Price (FFP?

Not at this time. Please refer to the answer for question 9 on

General RFP tab

5 Cost ‐ A02 Attachment 09 Cost Template – May potential contractors modify Attachment 09 to include indirect rates for FPI costs?

The Government discourage this. If it makes the Offeror's proposal preparation process easier and it's still clear what the initial target costs/profits are, then the Government does not object; however, this added information would add no value in terms of how the

Government arrives at an evaluation price.

Cost Template page 1 of 1

1 General. For a FPI(S) contract, what auditing protocols will be implemented in order for the offeror to estimate the support costs more accurately?

The Government does not anticipate a pre‐award audit. During performance

Offerors should refer to cost accounting standards and earned value management system requirements.

2 General. If multiple awards are issued for AVCAD, multiple vendors will have EMD, LRIP, and FRP options. Is the USG planning to further differentiate options for system variants to justify basis for multiple awards, i.e. meaning will one award/vendor support a specified mission and/or service need?

The offerors' single allowed proposal should address all missions. The use of multiple awards mitigates risk that a successful offeror may not succeed at the EMD phase. 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 scenario (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 on (i) price, (ii) sustainment cost, (iii) performance against the PSPEC and any mission requirements to maintain multiple sources of supply. The Government intends to evaluate and exercise options that are in the best interest of the Government in accordance with the FAR 17.207 id ti3 General. Will AVCAD awards be coupled to specific mission sets and

CONOPs as detailed within Appendix A of the AVCAD Performance

Specification?

No.

4 If the Government is intending to pursue multiple awards, will

Government consider permitting vendors to submit multiple proposals?

No.

5 Can a vendor submit differing proposals for AVCAD system to support offering of sensors for multiple solutions? Section L currently states PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS : Offerors may only submit one proposal in response to this solicitation, and that proposal must be prepared in accordance with these instructions. Section M currently states M.1.2 Basis for

Award: The Government will award to the Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the best value to the Government, by applying the tradeoff process described in FAR 15.101‐1. The indication of (s) in Section M can be read that the Government will accept multiple proposals from the same offeror?

No, offerors may not submit multiple proposals. The "(s)" in M.1.2. is merely to indicate the Government may award a contract to more than one offeror.

6 What level of reporting is required for the IMS and correlating WBS? Level 4

7 Can offerors gain access to the classified AVCAD performance specifications in the reading room now prior to release of the RFP? Are there limitations on quantity of visitors and occurrence of the visits per offering team?

No, the reading room will not be available until the RFP has been released.

There will not be explicit limitations on the number of visits or visitors, but all visits must be scheduled/approved and will be dependent on availability of

Government personnel and facilities to support the requested visits. If the number of visits or visitors becomes unsupportable, the Government may impose reasonable limitations, however, any such limitations would be consistently applied.

8 If two contracts are awarded, and performance is demonstrated to be compliant with the AVCAD specifications during testing, will subsequent purchase order options in FRP be issued based on lowest cost of the offered AVCAD system? If not, how does the Government define best value to justify selection of one offeror over another for basis of the award?

See answer to question 2.

9 Contract Type, page 3 – The benefit of incentive fee to the Government in cost and performance are appropriately realized during the EMD and

LRIP phases. The benefit becomes diminished in the Production Phase where there should be sufficient information, with firm requirements, qualified suppliers, and no unresolved design issues, to shift the risk and reward to the contractor for a reasonable return.

Will the Government consider changing the contract type for the

Production Phase from FPIF to FFP?

Soliciting as an FPI(S) contract type is meant to divert a meaningful amount of cost risk from prospective Offerors at a time where there are cost uncertainties, to attract competitive proposals. FPI(S) provides a contractual means to adjust incentives (including contract type) to contractor(s) throughout performance.

General RFP page 1 of 1

1 Section 3.2.4.d requires USB 3.0 compatible communication interface.

1. Does the Government require USB 3.0 or just compatibility? USB 2.0 is compatible with USB 3.0, and is sufficient for our data download (section 3.3.1.e).

2. Does the Government require the offeror to implement CCSI over both Ethernet and USB? The CCSI specification and tools are more complete for TCP/IP

(Ethernet).

1. USB 3.0 is required. 2. CCSI is required on just the Ethernet interface. The Performance Specification has been updated accordingly.

2 Will the Government update the performance specification to differentiate which requirements are priorities for each mission set?

The AVCAD Performance Specification identifies KPPs and KSAs which are pertinent to all of the detector missions.

3 Prior versions of the AVCAD specifications included affordability targets as Table 8 of the Performance

Specification, e.g. detector procurement cost for the

AVCAD detector of $10,000. Why was this specification removed? Is this cost no longer desirable to the

Services?

Cost is an important consideration to the Services. Offerors should propose their best price for the production and sustainment of the

AVCAD.

4 Section 3.1.3.b, System Characteristics – If research indicates that an aerosol inlet which exceeds SWaP is required for optimum collection efficiency in a specific installation, can this inlet be considered as part of the PIK and therefore outside the detector SWaP?

Yes, specific platform required components are not considered in the SWaP.

5 Section 3.1.3.b, System Characteristics – states that a modular component which is outside the detector SWaP limits may be used for communication between the detector and remote alarm. Does the modular component need to carry batteries to allow communication when shore power is not available?

The modular communication component could be battery powered or run off detection power. But battery time specification remains the same. The specification has been updated accordingly.

6 Section 3.1.6.2.h, Remote Alarm Warning and Reporting states that an architecture that allows interface to other sensors is required. If this includes legacy sensors designed to work with the M42 alarm, is the remote alarm required to include binding posts?

Binding posts are not required on the remote alarm. The modular open systems architecture refers to the AVCAD and remote alarm software. The specification has been updated accordingly.

7 PSpec Table 5 States and Modes – Normal Operation Mode has been revised to state that the system shall start sampling automatically for both Rapid Response (30 second response times) and Post Event Monitoring (180 second response time) concentrations simultaneously, if there is no Operator Selected Mode. Please clarify the requirement to perform both sampling response times at the same time.

If the detector does not have operator selectable modes of operation, the default system start up is to enter into both the

Rapid Response and Post Event Monitoring capability. If the detector can only be in a single mode of operation at a time, the default system start up is the Rapid Response mode.

8 PSpec Table 5, States and Modes – Normal Operation Mode, requires Event and Failure logs shall be accessible while in that mode. Is the requirement that these logs can be accessed by the operator while the system is sampling and recording data?

Yes. The specification has been updated accordingly.

Performance Specification page 1 of 2

9 Section 3.1.6.1 and 3.1.6.2, state that “wireless” capability is a threshold requirement. Are the detector and remote alarm required to include capability for 801.11 standard wireless communication?

Built‐in 802.11 communication between the detector and remote alarm is required. The specification has been updated accordingly.

10 Section 3.1.6.2, is there a threshold requirement defined for weight and cube of the Remote alarm?

No larger than 3,500 cubic centimeters (roughly 6 x 6 x 6 inches) and weigh no more than 2.3 kg (5 lbs). The specification has been updated accordingly.

11 Section 3.1.6.2, is the remote alarm required to include the ability to remotely control the detector?

If so, what specific functions are required to be included?

The remote alarm should provided the same functionality as if the operator was using the on‐detector control. The specification has been updated accordingly.

12 3.1.6.2.i, Is CCSI a requirement for communications between the detector and remote alarm? Are there mandatory commands applicable to this bi-directional communication between the detector and remote alarm?

Yes, CCSI is required between the AVCAD and Remote Alarm. The specification has been updated accordingly. There are mandatory

CCSI commands in accordance with the CCSI standard.

13 Section 3.2.5 Shipboard Interface and Appendix B

– Interface Control Document for Shipboard Application, additional interface information is needed for the contractors to determine and bid the most effective path for retrofit of the AVCAD detection solution, primarily to determine the utility of re-using some of the existing components which is the government’s stated preference. What are the desired bidding assumptions for this CLIN for the proposal?

Vendors should bid to the current Interface Control Document (ICD) contained in the RFP. Their proposal should include their assumptions where information they deem required is not identified.

14 Appendix B – Interface Control Document for Shipboard Application, Table 1 – Shipboard Physical Interfaces, Are options to reduce condensation, to include heating the tubing and/or other components, being considered?

If so, please describe in detail what changes to the system prior to the AVCAD award are being contemplated?

Also, how should a contractor bid changes to a system that is already being modified?

The Shipboard Interface Control Document (ICD) contains all of the pertinent information of the currently installed systems.

Performance Specification page 2 of 2

1 Section C.6.1 requires that the contractor report “All contractor labor hours.”

Does this apply to all contract phases, including LRIP and FRP?

It applies to all the CPIF CLINs. Section C.6.1 has been updated accordingly.

2 Section C.10.8 states – “The requirements of Program Management (C.3.1);

Systems Engineering (C.3.2); Packaging, Handling, Storage and Transportation

(PHS&T) (C.5.3); and IUID (C.5.4.4) shall apply to this option.”

The reference to (C.5.3) should be corrected in the above statement to reflect

(C.7.4) as the current section number is incorrect.

The Government agrees with and will make this correction to the

PWS.

3 Sections C.8.2‐C.8.8, Integration of a detector on vehicular platforms is technically and programmatically complex, and is expected to involve the program office and prime contractor for the vehicle and must be supported by

NBC‐CA.

a. Given the large number of unknowns, what is the bid basis for the sub‐

CLINs under CLIN 0009?

Concur. The JPM CA and platform PM will be involved in installation efforts. The bid basis should be the non‐recurring engineering of platform physical, electrical, and communication interfaces to form a platform installation kit and projections of integration hardware and software costs for each platform, including assumptions. Section C will be revised accordingly. As already stated in Section C.8. "The

Government will provide required Interface Control Documentation

(ICD) for each platform prior to the exercise of this option." The

Offeror will have the opportunity prior to option award to evaluate whether the proposed cost requires modification.

PWS page 1 of 1

1 Section B. Can the Government provide their rationale for selecting a FPI(S) contract type for LRIP and FRP?

Soliciting as an FPI(S) contract type is meant to divert a meaningful amount of cost risk from prospective Offerors at a time where there are cost uncertainties. FPI(S) provides a contractual means to adjust incentives (including contract type) to contractor(s) throughout performance.

2 Section B. Would the Government consider allowing a vendor to assume the risk of a FFP contract type for

LRIP and FRP?

No.

3 Section B. What would be required to transition in LRIP from FPI(S) to FFP contract?

See prior question 1

Section B page 1 of 1

Numbe r Question Response

1 Section L.1.2 states that prior Q&A’s do not apply to this DRFP. Some of the technical guidance provided in the answers to questions received on 26 June is relevant to the system design and are quite helpful in preparing a bid.

However the PSpec dated 5 June and provided with the draft RFP did not include all of the changes or information generated from these answers.

Does the Government intend to further modify the PSpec to provide the valuable information generated from previous Q&As?

If the answers provided previously do not apply the DRFP, do contractors need to resubmit their original questions?

The Government continues to use feedback from industry to improve the

RFP and proposals should be based only on the final RFP. As stated in

Section L.1.2., offerors should not rely on any prior Q&A answers when preparing their single proposal to the final/actual RFP. While the question and answer period for this Draft RFP is over, if offerors have any questions when the final RFP is released, offerors should ask those questions (even if those same questions have been previously asked and answered as part of a Draft RFP release). This process of having one final and dispositive set of

Q&As for the final RFP ensures that all offerors are on a level playing field and that the Government and industry are all referring to the exact same information.

2 Section L.1.5.1, states that AVCAD classified solicitation documentation can be made available in reading room upon approval of a defined request. We have been advised that the reading room will not be open until after solicitation release. To allow us to begin preparation of the proposal, can the government state whether LODs have been established for targets which did not previously have LODs assigned? For agents which had LODs (in previous

PSpec versions), have the LODs changed?

All targets have LODs. The Government will not discuss which (if any) have changed until the reading room is available.

3 Section L.4.5.3.2 The RFP identifies the overrun share, but does not identify the underrun share, leaving it up too the Contracting Officer. Can the

Government provide clarification on the reason for defining overrun share but not the underrun share now?

Our intent is to provide a greater contractor underrun share based on a few factors, such as 1) confidence that the successive target cost is reasonably challenging but achievable and 2) willingness to accept a lower ceiling price if appropriate based on actuals. As written, the contractor underrun share is at least 15%, so any deviation from this percentage would benefit the contractor.

4 Section L.1.7 Will the winning offeror be allowed the opportunity to identify proprietary information in the proposal that may be redacted prior to incorporation into the contract?

Yes.

5 Section L. Given that the previous Volume 1 has been split into three volumes, would it be acceptable for the offeror to submit a completed Pspec as a separate attachment or would the Government prefer the offeror to split the Pspec into the appropriate sections for the relevant volume, i.e.

technical approach versus support and ownership?

Please address all elements in the appropriate volume.

Section L page 1 of 1