Q_A Matrix AMD 2_ltrhead_final.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND - REDSTONE

BUILDING 401 LEE BOULEVARD

FORT EUSTIS, VIRGINIA 23604-5577

Question Government Response

1. What percentage of work is expected to occur on-site at Ft Eustis?

On site work is expected to range from 5-10% but will vary based on complexity of the integration and challenges encountered.

2. Please provide a description of the current MSFTB lab configuration and maturity, including the HW and SW installed/utilized.

The lab will be configured to connect to the MSFTB flight rack as well as a non-ruggedized version using commercial components. The software will be identical between the flight rack and in the lab. TDD will demonstrate lab maturity prior to first use by any

MSI.

3. What is the Army’s physical instantiation of the digital backbone? Or is the Army looking for the mission systems integrator to provide a concept?

Details on the physical instantiation of the digital backbone will be provided after contract award.

Mission Systems Integrators will be able to make recommendations as part of the GFI Utilization Report, CDRL A007.

4. Are offerors with a comprehensive small business plan required to provide a program-specific small business subcontracting plan?

In situations where the Offeror has an approved Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan, DFARS 219.7 takes precedence and the submission of an individual plan is not required.

5.

Will offerors be able to screen future task orders for OCIs?

Yes; Offerors’ will be able to screen task orders upon receipt of a Request for Task Order Proposal. See also H-4, Organizational Conflict of Interest, which has been added.

6. Will offerors be able to no-bid task orders if they determine there is an OCI concern?

Yes, see H-1, Task Order Procedures, paragraph l, which has been modified; see also paragraph H-4 Organizational Conflict of Interest which has been added.

7. Please confirm our understanding that the IDIQ SOW does not include systems engineering and technical assistance (SETA) work as defined in

FAR 9.505-1?

The work under this IDIQ does not contemplate systems engineering and technical assistance (SETA) efforts as defined in FAR 9.505-1.

8. On Page 9, Section 3 of the Solicitation, there is a statement that reads: “The contractor, as an independent contractor and not as an agent of the Government, shall perform all activities required to establish system requirements, It is not the intent of any award to be made under this Call, that MSIs establish system requirements that will be used by the Army for future competitive acquisitions that would create an OCI.

integrate, test and demonstrate MSUTs per the scenarios described above.” Please confirm that MSIs will not establish system requirements that will be used by the Army for future competitive acquisitions that would create an OCI under FAR 9.5 restricting the MSI from competing in the competitive acquisition.

9. Please confirm that the scope of work of future MSFTB task orders will not be considered advisory and assistance services (A&AS).

It is not contemplated that the work under any award made from this Call will include advisory and assistance services (A&AS).

10. Section C, 1.1 of the model contract states that, “(T)he purpose of the Integrated Mission Equipment (IME) for Vertical Lift Systems . . .

informs the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA), Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA), and other Future Vertical Lift systems.” Can you please define what “informs” means under the MSFTB BAA?

In the context of the MSFTB BAA, “informs” means to provide a technical report on the validity of IME’s integration approach. “Informs” does not mean to provide a specification for use on any future acquisition.

11. Can the Government please confirm that work performed under the MSFTB BAA will not create biased ground rules or unequal access to information OCI for upcoming Future Vertical Lift competitive acquisitions?

See clause H-4, Organizational Conflict of Interest which has been added.

12. The Call, Section 3.1 Proposal Instructions, references paragraph 4.2.1 to describe offeror’s experience. Will you be providing an amendment with that description? I don’t see guidance in the master BAA either.

The Call has been revised to remove item 10 under

3.1 of the Call.

13. In the BAA documents it states: “The Government will separately acquire various MSUT(s) that will be independently integrated by one or more MSIs into the MSFTB.” (Doc Titled: W911W6-23-R-0004 Posted 24Mar23, Page. 7).

Correct, each MSI will be tasked with integrating one MSUT, potentially additional MSUTs if selected for later task orders. These MSUTs are to be integrated by each MSI independently, and the MSUT being integrated may or may not be the same as those being integrated by other MSIs. The MSUTs will be procured by the Government and provided to the MSIs for integration.

14. As we do not intend to pursue the program as an MSI, and exclusively seeking to propose MSUT capabilities should we expect a follow-on series of announcements related to the individual MSUTs or should we submit technical

Yes, there will be follow-on announcements soliciting for MSUT proposals. Any MSUT proposals submitted under the current solicitation will not be considered for award.

proposals for our technologies in response to the MSFTB BAA?

15. Can you confirm the anticipated Period of Performance for Call W911W623R0004?

The IDIQ contract will contain a 5 year ordering period. The first Task Order is anticipated to have a 12 month period of performance.

16. Will the selected contractor have access to the Government SIL H/W for integration?

Due to the nature of having multiple MSI’s working concurrently, access to the Government SIL will likely be limited and scheduled but will eventually be required for physical integration.

17. Will the selected contractor be required to provide onsite support personnel in Huntsville / Ft Eustis?

Physical integration with the MSFTB would require onsite support at Ft Eustis/Huntsville, however earlier tasks, such as preparing for integration could potentially be completed virtually.

18. Will the selected contractor be required to provide support personnel for MSFTB lab integration and verification tasks at customer locations?

Yes, the selected contractor would be required to be located onsite for some integration activities.

19. What process level of rigor should System Integration Guide (SIG) cover (WRT DO-178, DO- 254)? Do you intend to use the SIG for all Design Assurance Levels (DAL A – DAL D etc.)?

Addressing airworthiness in the SIG is Offeror’s prerogative but TDD-A IME project does not intend to progress a Mission System Under Test (MSUT) integrated with the MSFTB to airworthiness qualification. Addressing an airworthiness approach in the SIG is certainly appropriate, however.

20. Will the MSUT integration software be reused on the target platform (i.e., FARA/FLRAA) including generation of Airworthiness artifacts?

Integration techniques (to include any hardware and software) used for this effort are intended for Govt learning for this effort only. If any hardware/ software is identified as desired by other PM platforms, procurement/agreements would take place via an alternate contract.

21. The training under section 4.1 (4.1.1-4.1.4) appears to be standard flow down regardless of employee work location and responsibilities. Is all training required of all contractor employees that are supporting MSFTB efforts? Or limited to contractors working at government facilities? If required, approximately how long would it take each person to complete each course (total hrs.

required per employee for 5 trainings listed under sec 4.0)? And can each be completed remotely? What if training activity which requires a CAC card? What if a training requires

Yes, equivalent contractor provided training, is acceptable.

in-person instructor led training at customer site? (e.g., sec 4.1.4 TARP training presented by a Counterintelligence Special Agent at customer site will require additional travels by all contracted employees?) In lieu of the training courses specified, can equivalent contractor-provided training be considered?

22. AT Awareness Training for Contractor Personnel Traveling Overseas – is this required by all US based contractor employees? If so, what overseas travel is expected under this contract?

No overseas travel will be required for this effort.

23. iWATCH Training - If this type of training is required, how will the applicable local iWATCH program be provided? Note: Contractor employees supporting MSFTB may be physically located at multiple sites. In lieu of the training courses specified, can equivalent contractor-provided training be considered?

Yes, equivalent contractor provided training, is acceptable.

24. Threat Awareness Reporting Program Training (TARP) - If this training is required, can it be conducted remotely (Requirement to contact Redstone Arsenal for scheduling can imply that this is on-site training)? In lieu of the training courses specified, can equivalent contractor-provided training be considered?

Yes, equivalent contractor provided training, is acceptable.

25. Are there any Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) restrictions or limitations if we are currently functioning as a Mission System Integrator for current (e.g., FLRAA, FARA, etc.)

or future US Army Future Vertical Lift Programs?

See response to Question #11 above.

26. The MSFTB Call in section 1.2.1 references Annex A. We cannot find an Annex A in the provided documents.

The Call has been revised to change ‘Annex A’ to ‘in the GFI Table in Section 8’.

27. Does a severable, self-standing SOW count against the 30-page technical volume page limit?

Please see Section 5.2.2 of the Master BAA (W911W6-21-R-0013) and Section 3.1 of the Call, which provides the requested information.

28. Between the RFP call out and what were included as attachment, there were a number of CDRL discrepancies. Specifically, CDRLs A004, A005, A008, A009 and A011 were included in the RFP call out but not listed out as a requirement in the Draft Task Order. Please

The solicitation/draft contract has 11 CDRLs attached (Section J, Exhibits A-L). These CDRLs are the complete list of what may be required with each Task Order. Draft Task Order 1, specifies in Section C those deliverables that will be required for Task Order 1 and which include: A001, A002, A003, A006, A007, and A010.

clarify if these CDRLs received with the Call will be included in the award?

29. Is CDRL A008 expected to be in the scope of task order 1?

No

30. Section 2.1- MSFTB Lab facility - Is there an expectation that integration and verification be performed (or supported) remotely?

It is up to an integrator’s process and capabilities as to what amount integration and verification that can be performed remotely in support of the on-site activities.

31. Call Section 8- For GFI items 23-25 (to be delivered upon contract award), can any pertinent data (such as current/estimated/ expected file size, page count, # elements) be provided to which can aide in our estimates in time to review?

Items 23-25 of the GFI are intended to be used as reference and should not require more than 1 week to review.

32. Call Section 8- Will the Government provide training for any MSFTB-unique test GFI tools? Or will User's Manual be provided? What is the estimated time required to conduct the training or size of the manuals?

An MSFTB deep dive will be held approximately 45 days after contract award. This deep dive is anticipated to be a 1-2 day session.

33. Section 2.1- The Anticipated MSI Timeline schedule in both the Call and Solicitation indicates that Task Order #2 commences 180 days after Contract Award, the same day as the completion of Task Order #1. The Call document also states, "The Government anticipates Task Order 2 Request for Proposals will be published 180 days after contract award". Please confirm the Task Order #2 schedule, including anticipated RFP, Award, Lab Demo, and Flight Demo.

Requests for Proposals for Task Order #2 may be issued as early as System Integration Guide (SIG) approval from Task Order #1. Schedule for TO2 is dependent on TO1 completion. Award timelines for TO2 may vary dependent on scope and complexity.

These Task Orders are intended to be carried out sequentially, not concurrently, and eligibility for subsequent Task Orders will be dependent on completion and results, technical progress from preceding Task Orders and available funding.

34. Page 17, H-1 Task Order Procedures, reads as if Task Orders will be issued as sole source and not as competitive between the multiple IDIQ holders. Is this accurate?

Yes. See H-1 Task Order Procedures which has been revised to clarify how subsequent Orders will be issued. Subsequent orders, after award of the first Task order, will not be competed amongst all IDIQ holders but will be based upon technical progress and available funding.

35. The DIDs referenced in CDRLs A002 and A003 both require similar expenditure reporting. Is it the Government’s intent for both CDRLs to include financial information?

No, CDRL A002 is intended exclusively for technical status updates and A003 is intended for cost status updates. CDRL A002 has been updated to clarify.

36. Are the CDRLs listed in W911W6-23-R-0004 expected to be the only deliverables?

See response #28. To reiterate, the CDRLs in the IDIQ contract are the only deliverables anticipated. Each

Task Order will list which specific CDRLs, from the overall listing, are applicable to the Task Order.

37. Will the US Army require the integrators to deliver any FACE Applications?

Yes, if any FACE Applications are developed exclusively for this effort, they would be expected to be delivered.

38. Will the US Army disseminate the Systems Integration Guides we deliver to the other MSIs that participate in this program?

No. The System Integration Guides will not be shared between MSI’s, the intent is for each integration strategy to be carried out independently and not influence the approaches of others.

39. Will the US Army disseminate any/all contract deliverables (all task orders) to contractors integrating components on other FVL platforms?

Deliverables could be shared with program offices and used in accordance with the associated data rights.