LSI Concept Definition RFP Questions and Answers

Approved for Release 1/21/97

Question: Nr: 1 Will the contract contain any Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) clauses that would restrict/prohibit the Lead Systems Integration contractor and team members from bidding on any other BMDO, Military Services, or other DoD system or hardware/software procurements.

Answer There are no plans to place restrictions on LSI bidders that would prohibit their participation in other BMDO, Military Services, or other DoD system or hardware/software procurements. This does not mean that there would not be restrictions in the future. BMDO has little or no control over what other DoD Agencies/Services do on their procurements.


Question: Nr: 2 Any clauses that would restrict/prohibit TRW from bidding as a team member to another prime bidder?

Answer The anticipated relationships between Element contractors are outlined in Clause H-4. There are no restrictions on teaming arrangements provided no arrangement is exclusive to the extent that bidding is restricted. No contractor will perform as the SE&I and LSI simultaneously. Element contractors are not otherwise restricted from competing to any greater extent than other competitors.


Question: Nr: 3 Is there a list or any information available that identifies the current or projected NMD BM3 (sic) critical issues? When can this information be made available?

Answer There is no specific list of current or projected NMD BMC3 critical issues. However, issues relating to the LSI CD procurement will be contained in the LSI Concept Definition Request for Proposal and will be supported and expanded on by the additional material that will be contained in the bidders library. The bidders library material will be provided to interested prime contractor bidders on CD ROM. There will also be reference material on the LSI Home Page on the Internet.


Question: Nr: 4 The CBD states "NMD elements currently under contract and being developed". Are there any constraints on LSI interactions or teaming with contractors that are currently developing and/or competing for system elements?

Answer The anticipated relationships between Element contractors are outlined in Clause H-4. There are no restrictions on teaming arrangements provided no arrangement is exclusive to the extent that bidding is restricted. No contractor will perform as the SE&I and LSI simultaneously. Element contractors are not otherwise restricted from competing to any greater extent than other competitors.


Question: Nr:5 Is the mid-October RFP release date a high probability, or do you anticipate a delay? If so, what is your best estimate?

Answer The best estimate for the release of the CD phase RFP is 15 November 1996. (See Hot News Item for 12 November for revision of this answer to 25 Nov. 96)


Question: Nr. 6 Will the GBI be procured as part of this LSI contract or via a separate contract vehicle? If separate, when do you anticipate a solution for GBI?

Answer: It is intended that the LSI Contractor will procure and integrate the GBI (kill vehicle, booster and infrastructure) with the rest of the NMD system.


Question: Nr: 7 What is the anticipated time between the completion of CD phase and the 30 month capability demonstration phase?

Answer: The intent is to immediately evaluate and award the LSI NMD System Integration contract at the end of the CD phase.


Question: Nr: 8 During the parallel CD's will the contractors be able to exchange information or will BMDO keep the contractors separated?

Answer: BMDO does not intend to place any restrictions on the contractors selected to perform the LSI Concept Development contract.


Question: Nr: 9 The CBD states "alternative A Specs for Minuteman and/or infrastructure supplied as government furnished equipment". Are there any constraints, or special considerations, on LSI interactions with product center SPO's and their contractors.

Answer: The government does not intend to place restrictions on relationships between contractors. If the contractor needs to contact a government SPO, they will make the request through BMDO. It is the responsibility of each contractor to comply with relevant security regulations as they relate to passing of classified data.


Question: Nr: 10 The CBD indicates that the LSI contractor will be developing A-Specs for the GBI booster, implies that the rest of the system concept is fixed. Is it true that the rest of the system is fixed? If true, this may prevent taking advantage of infrastructure for one solution/approach not applicable to other infrastructures. Please comment

Answer The government does not intend that the contractor re-invent the NMD architecture. Major components of the NMD architecture are indeed firm. However, the contractor will not be restricted from proposing to the government changes to the NMD architecture that will enhance the capabilities of the NMD system.


Question: Nr. 11 Is the LSI contractor's role limited to A specs for and the integration of the booster with the EKV. That is, will the government procure the booster and provide it along with the EKV as GFE or will the LSI contractor be responsible for developing/procuring the booster?

Answer: It is the intention of the government that the LSI contractor will be responsible for the development and procurement of a GBI including the EKV and the booster. The government is expecting the LSI contractor to field an integrated NMD system which will include a GBI consisting of an LSI contractor selected booster that is integrated with an LSI contractor selected kill vehicle. The CD Contractors will develop their approach for procurement of elements including the GBI. They may, consistent with their choice of best value to the government, choose to have some parts delivered GFE and others supplied via subcontractors, etc. For instance, if the Minuteman missile is selected as the booster the Air Force may have surplus missiles that could be made available as GFE along with all applicable infrastructure. In addition the LSI contractor may chose to continue the existing EKV competition and downselect the EKV after testing. The contractor is expected to propose the best approach for the Government's development of an NMD System.


Question: Nr: 12 Can GBI integration be interpreted as meaning integration of the air vehicle and the associated facilities and infrastructure, or is it limited to integration of the air vehicle?

Answer: GBI integration is intended to mean integration of all aspects of the GBI to include air vehicle, facilities and infrastructure.


Question: Nr: 13 The CBD calls for "development of the complete statement of objectives". Why does it call for a statement of objectives (SOO) instead of a statement of work? Is the SOO going to be used for a competition other than the LSI contract?

Answer: The term "Statement Of Objectives" is a replacement for the term "Statement Of Work." It reflects a change in how the government passes to potential offerors the needs of the government.


Question: Nr: 14 The CBD states that "on-line interaction with the government to assist in the development of the complete statement of objectives". Is the on-line interaction limited to SOO development?

Answer: To the maximum extent possible, the government intends to make maximum use of on-line interaction with contractors through the Internet. To that extent the government has established a Lead System Integrator Home Page that can be reached through the BMDO BARBB. Specific instructions for reaching the BARBB are contained in the CBD announcement for the LSI CD solicitation.


Question: Nr: 15 Are LSI contractors required to evaluate a Minuteman booster concept or any other specific concept during the CD phase?

Answer: Contractors that participate in the LSI CD phase will be required to evaluate and report on the use of Minuteman as an approach to the GBI booster requirement. Please refer to the LSI draft Statement of Objectives, which is currently on the BARBB, for additional information on the GBI concept alternatives.


Question: Nr: 16 Are the number of alternatives and A-Specs developed up to the proposing LSI contractors?

Answer: This requirement will be the responsibility of the proposing LSI CD contractors. Contractors will be expected to document their selected GBI approach to include A-Spec level information. Please refer to the draft Statement of Objectives (SOO) which is currently on the BARBB for further information on the requirement for alternatives and configurations as specified in the SOO. The contractor will evaluate the data to ensure alternatives were fairly evaluated and intended to allow the contractor to propose the contractors' selected approach.


Question: Nr: 17 who is responsible for modifying/developing the chosen infrastructure to be provided GFE? Does the LSI contractor provide BMDO with requirements and specifications which BMDO uses to source the infrastructure or does the LSI contractor modify/develop needed augmentations to the infrastructure GFE -- i.e., is the infrastructure GFE provided in as is condition?

Answer: The government intends that the contractor who is selected to perform the integration of the NMD system to be responsible for all aspects of the system integration. Infrastructure that is provided GFE will be provided in an as is condition and it will be the responsibility of the contractor to work with the government to upgrade or modify the infrastructure to support the NMD system.


Question: Nr: 18 What will be the response times from RFP release to proposal delivery and contract award?

Answer: Proposers will be given approximately 60 days for proposal submission and the intent is to award the contracts on or about 15 March. (see Hot News item of 12 Nov. 96 for a revision to this answer to 28 days)


Question: Nr: 19 Will present element contractors be permitted to bid as LSI Contractor?

Answer: We are working to allow maximum participation within the constraints of equitable access to essential information for bidding. There is no plan to preclude element contractors from competing for the LSI CD or LSI contract.


Question: Nr: 20 Will SETA contractors to BMDO be permitted to bid LSI Contract? If so will there be a hardware exclusion clause?

Answer: Unless restricted by OCI clauses in their contracts, they can participate if they so choose. At this time there is no hardware exclusion planned.


Question: Nr: 21 Will element contractors be allowed to team exclusively for LSI competition?

Answer The anticipated relationships between Element contractors are outlined in Clause H-4. There are no restrictions on teaming arrangements provided no arrangement is exclusive to the extent that bidding is restricted. No contractor will perform as the SE&I and LSI simultaneously. Element contractors are not otherwise restricted from competing to any greater extent than other competitors.


Question: Nr: 22 How will each bidder learn the status of all NMD elements in order to accurately price the work needed to bring them to deployment readiness during the CD phase?

Answer: Some government documents and schedule information will be contained in the bidders library. However, the most direct way to gain information about the status of element contracts is to have direct contact with an element contractor. If you have suggestions on ways to improve the process, please include them in your comments to the SOO and RFP.


Question: Nr: 23 Assuming cost is a key issue, does not GFE Minuteman give that option a significant advantage

Answer: The contractors GBI alternatives assessment should define and assess cost as one of many variables. Government intent is to award the LSI Contract based on a best value. One consideration is if Minuteman is a player, how can Minuteman play in this process.


Question: Nr: 24 Will the GBI approach selected come from the LSI contractors selection or from any of the 3 competitors?

Answer: The selected GBI approach will come from the selected LSI contractor.


Question: Nr: 25 Any consideration for small business only set aside (e.g., 8711) to more easily facilitate small business involvement for innovative concepts, approaches, etc. that may otherwise be lost in the noise of the "big boys" in-house focus?

Answer: Small businesses will be given the maximum consideration possible in the BMDO contract strategy. However, these procurements will not be set aside for participation by small businesses exclusively.


Question: Nr: 26 Any preferences on electronic submittals of

- SOO/RFP draft comments

- proposal itself

- products of CD phase

Will you specify hardware & software preferences/requirements

Answer: To the extent possible, assuming that you stay within the normal range of word processing and graphics systems, we will attempt to work with whatever system you choose to use for your documents. If this becomes a problem we will publish an approved list of software packages on the Internet Home Page.


Question: Nr: 27 Information received prior to industry briefing indicated LSI contractor would be responsible for total system performance. During industry brief, it was stated that government would ultimately be "responsible for the integrated system." Does this infer that system performance responsibility will be shared and if so, to what extent.

Answer: It is the intent of the government that the LSI contractor will be given Total System Integration

Responsibility. To the maximum extent possible, the Government plans to give the LSI contractor Total

System Performance Responsibility.


Question: Nr: 28 Given that element contracts will be maintained by the Services, how will the Services respond to actions recommended by the LSI to change the element concepts/program/schedule to improve integration of the overall system of systems?

Answer: It is intended that the LSI contractor will procure and integrate all elements of the NMD system. This will occur as a part of the actual LSI contract and is not a part of this NMD LSI Concept Definition contract.


Question: Nr: 29 Is it planned to list all of the attendees at this brief on the home page

Answer: Yes! The list of attendees is included on the Home Page.


Question: Nr: 30 Given the importance of BMC3, what will be the opportunities for participation in BMC3 work in the LSI acquisition?

Answer This would depend on the desires of the winning bidder on the LSI contract. The LSI Contractor will be responsible for all elements of the NMD system to include BMC3. The LSI Contractor will propose his approach for procuring the NMD BMC3 capability. Currently, TRW is under contract to BMDO to develop the NMD BMC3 element.


Question: Nr: 31 How will the LSI contractor be able to gain other contractors' proprietary data when necessary for NMD success?

Answer The LSI contractor will be required to develop plans for exchange of proprietary data required for NMD success.


Question: Nr: 32 The CBD addressed one element to be "supplemental radars". Please define/describe.

Answer: The supplemental radar's are defined in the SRD. See Answer to #10.


Question: Nr: 33 How will the LSI contractor "control/direct" activities supporting NMD but report to a different mission/service area?

Answer: NMD performance dependencies on collateral mission of other systems are a government responsibility. The LSI contractor will be responsible for interface management and ensuring NMD performance. The LSI contractor will be responsible for integrating all elements of the NMD. How he achieves this will be his responsibility to propose.


Question: Nr: 34 How does the TRW BMC3/SE&I contractor relate to the LSI contractor? Is TRW "an associate" to LSI? Or is BMC3 an "integrated" element?

Answer The anticipated relationships between Element contractors are outlined in Clause H-4. There are no restrictions on teaming arrangements provided no arrangement is exclusive to the extent that bidding is restricted. No contractor will perform as the SE&I and LSI simultaneously. Element contractors are not otherwise restricted from competing to any greater extent than other competitors.


Question: Nr: 35 Please describe to what extent, if any, OCI determinations have been made concerning existing elements development contractors, and the ability of such contractors to participate on a CD (or follow-on LSI) team.

Answer: There have not been any OCI determinations or restrictions established at this time. If it becomes necessary, OCI restrictions will be addressed on the LSI Procurement Home Page.


Question: Nr: 36 Will the initial draft RFP on the bulletin board contain draft OCI sections as well? If not available initially, when might industry be able to see the first cut against which we can respond.

Answer: There will be a general OCI clause included in the draft RFP


Question: Nr: 37 What level of EKV data will be given to contractors prior to and during the CD phase?

Answer For the LSI CD proposal phase, the Government made available appropriate information in its possession in the Bidders Library. There will be no proprietary data made available in the Bidders Library. Additional data, if desired, should be requested from appropriate contractors. Also see Clause H-4 of Version 4 of the draft NMD LSI CD Request for Proposal (RFP) on this Home Page.


Question: Nr: 38 What funding constraints are planned for LSI incremental, Multi-year, and leading to FY 99 Demo?

Answer: No funding constraints are planned. If the contractor or contractor team feels special incremental or multi-year funding approaches would be beneficial, those approaches should be proposed.


Question: Nr: 39 What mandatory MIL-STD's will be imposed on the program.

Answer: It is the intent of the government to streamline the acquisition of NMD. NMD performance requirements may result in MIL-STD or Spec performance requirements on specific portions of the system if proposed by the contractor.


Question: Nr: 40 What if the winning LSI contractor did not have the best GBI solution? Would BMDO direct the winning LSI to develop another bidder's GBI solution or make GBI solution GFE by BMDO taking over GBI development?

Answer: It is the intention of the government to select the NMD solution with the best value to the Government.


Question: Nr: 41 Will LSI contract scope include any BMC3I content/tasks? Can you be specific on what they might be?

Answer: This would depend on the desires of the winning offeror on the LSI contract. The LSI contractor will be responsible for all elements of the NMD system to include BMC3. However, this RFP is for the LSI CD phase and as such would contain no BMC3 development work.


Question: Nr: 42 How many contractors are presently involved with NMD elements and SETA efforts? Does BMDO plan novation of any of these contracts to the LSI contractor? Will these contracts be available on the Internet for LSI bidder review?

Answer: There are currently 6 prime contractors and multiple subcontractors involved with NMD elements. Novation will not be required by the government. The requirement, if any, to novate any existing contract should be addressed in the offeror's Concept Definition Proposal. The government does not believe it necessary to identify SETA efforts supporting NMD. Current NMD elements contracts are listed below:

Element  Contract Start and End of Current Period  Deployment Option  Contract Number  Contractor(s) 
EKV  2OCT90-4Q98

Basic/Options3 

None  DASG60-90-C-0165  Rockwell

Subs:

LTV/TRW 

EKV  2OCT90-4Q98

Basic/Options3 

None  DASG60-90-C-0166  Hughes

Subs:

MCDAC/Aerojet/

Honeywell/RC 

PLV  28OCT88-31DEC99  N/A  DASG60-86-C-0014  Lockheed Martin

Subs:

Kearfott/Honeywell AVD Space Vector Corp 

GBR-P  9NOV94-8SEP00  YES:

Preexisting CLINS 

DASG60-92-C-0184  Raytheon

Subs: TRW/DEC 

Element  Contract Start and End of Current Period  Deployment Option  Contract Number  Contractor(s) 
BMC3/S

E&I 

24AUG95-31AUG98  YES:

Contract MODS 

HQ0006-95-C-0018  TRW

Subs: Hughes, MCDAC, BD Systems, CTA, Digicon, Harris, SY Technology, Techmatics, Veda, Booz-Allen, Telos, Embark, Quantum, MSI, Alphatech, Decisive Analytics, Applied Technology, Aero Technology, Applied Data Technology, Nichols 

IFICS  Part of BMC3/SE&I Contract  No  HQ0006-95-C-0018  TRW

Subs: Harris 

SMTS  11DEC92-10OCT00  No  F04701-92-C-0062  TRW

Subs: Hughes, MCDAC, ARC, Photon, DSI, PRA, MRC 

SMTS  11DEC92-10MAR99  N/A  F04701-92-C-0063  Rockwell

Subs: MCDAC, Sensor System, British Aero, IBM, Paramax, Logan, Calspan 

ISTC  24APR92-23APR96  N/A  DASG60-92-C-0036  TBE 
FBXB  NO CONTRACT YET       
UEWR  NO CONTRACT YET       

Source: BMDO Integrated Contract Report. (BMDO/DCT) September 30, 1996


Question: Nr: 43 Does the Government intend that the LSI contractor have responsibility for conducting the competition for the Forward Based X band radar?

Answer: The government does intend for the LSI contractor to conduct new development of elements of the NMD to include the Forward Based X band radar.


Question: Nr: 44 Will the LSI contractor be responsible for the procurement of all NMD element of all NMD elements for the development of the deployment phases?

Answer: It is the Government's intent that the LSI contractor will be responsible of developing and deploying the NMD System. The purpose of the Concept Definition phase is for offerors to develop and identify their approach to the assumption of responsibility for the NMD System. Offerors should provide a plan for procurement to include: transition of current Element development; and, if required, the identification of Government Furnished Equipment.


Question: Nr: 45 When will BMDO require the LSI contractor to be responsible for NMD Total System Performance?

Answer: The LSI Contractor will be responsible for identifying when system integration responsibility will pass for the NMD Total System.


Question: Nr: 46 Are there existing modeling and simulation activities that the LSI contractor will become responsible for?

Answer Offerors will be responsible for modeling and simulation activities as identified in their concept development approach. However, the government may retain an independent modeling and simulation capability


Question: Nr: 47 What process will BMDO use to select applicable past performance/experience for this RPF? Will contractor recommended programs be considered as the basis of past performance? Will performance on commercial type programs be considered relevant experience/past performance?

Answer: The process to select applicable performance experience for this contract will be outlined in Sections L & M of the Concept Definition RFP. All contractor recommended programs will be considered when evaluating past performance. Commercial programs will be considered as part of the past performance evaluation process. The Government will also obtain performance evaluations from offerors' government and commercial customers.


Question: Nr: 48 Will BMDO consider issuing sole source contracts to three teams (if only three prime bidders announce their intention to bid) without proposals?

Answer: BMDO does not intend to issue sole source contracts without proposals. This is a competitive

procurement requiring proposals.


Question: Nr: 49 Will the LSI contractor be responsible for SMTS LEO downselect?

Answer: The LSI Contractor will not be responsible for the SMTS LEO downselect.


Question: Nr: 50 What role does the Government envision for the LSI contractor in the resolution of NMD treaty issues?

Answer The LSI Contractor may be required to recommend technical options to the government in the resolution of treaty issues.


Question: Nr: 51 The 3 plus 3 Acquisition Strategy says the NMD System will be operated by military with total support by the contractor. What is the government definition of total support?

Answer: NMD System Command and Control is to be manned by the government. All other operational, infrastructure, logistical and site maintenance support is to be provided by the LSI Contractor.


Question: Nr: 52 When will BMDO release Evaluation Criteria to bidders for the Lead System Integrator selection proposal RFP?

Answer: The Evaluation Criteria for the LSI Proposal will be issued with the RFP in calendar year 1997. The Government intends to make the draft LSI SOO and evaluation criteria available earlier to obtain industry input.


Question: Nr: 53 Will the LSI Contractor be responsible for the Environmental Impact Statement for this program?

Answer The LSI Contractor will be responsible for any required Environmental Impact Statements or Assessments for this program that have not been completed prior to award of the LSI base contract.


Question: Nr: 54 What role does the Government plan for he LSI Contractor in the integration of NMD with other elements of Theater Missile Defense and Cruise Missile Defense?

Answer The Government envisions a coordination and liaison relationship between the LSI Contractor and the Theater Missile Defense and Cruise Missile Defense Programs.


Question: Nr: 55 Will the LSI Contractor be required to identify and acquire the targets to be used for NMD testing/verification?

Answer The LSI Contractor will be provided targets as required for the FY 99 NMD System Demonstration. Offerors should include in their proposals targets required beyond the FY 99 System Demonstration.


Question: Nr: 56 The response to Question #18 states there will be a 60 day response time from issue to the LSI Concept Definition RFP until receipt of proposal. A shorter response time is possible with the relatively small size of the response and the current availability of drafts of the RFP. Since it is desirable to get the LSI contractor on contract as soon as possible to better provide the 99 test and deployment planning products, would BMDO consider a shorter response time?

Answer BMDO is planning a reduction in the response time to the Concept Definition RFP. Current plans call for releasing the Concept Definition RFP on or about 15 November 1996 with proposals due on or about 12 December 1996. BMDO requests any comments on major obstacles to a shortened proposal preparation time; your comments should be faxed to Mr. Peter Van Name, Contracting Officer, at 703-558-7445. (See Hot News item for 12 November, 1996 for an update to this answer to 25 November for RFP release and proposals due on 23 December, 1996.)


Question: Nr: 57 Section M of the 10/4/96 draft RFP lists several evaluation factors. Will BMDO provide relative weights of the these factors in a subsequent draft of the RFP?

Answer: The relative importance of the evaluation factors will be provided in a follow-on Draft of the Concept Definition RFP or in the final RFP. (See version three of the RFP)


Question: Nr: 58 Paragraph 2.1, NMD Integration Concept, of the SOO requires definition of 3 products for a NMD system implementation program that satisfies 3 programmatic objectives which are identified as items a), b), and c). Paragraph 2.2. GBI Development, then identifies 4 tasks to be accomplished for alternative configurations/approaches for each of 3 "NMD periods". These NMD periods are, in essence, restatements of the programmatic objectives listed in Paragraph 2.1. The implications are that these 3 NMD periods are a series of contiguous time periods with no overlap. Is this the governments intent? If these 3 items [a) testing through a system demonstration in FY 99; b) continuing system development, etc.: and c) system deployment and sustainment] represent parallel activities or CLINS which will overlap each other, a designation other than NMD period would serve to avoid confusion. We would suggest referring to them as major program activities or CLINs rather than "Periods".

Answer: The three "Periods" referenced in the SOO and in the question above are not intended to suggest a "series of contiguous time periods with no overlap". The decision to deploy can come any time after FY99. We expect development of the NMD Objective System will continue after the FY 99 System Demonstration and might continue even if an early deployment decision is made. Therefore, continued development of the NMD Objective System may overlap the decision to deploy.


Question: Nr: 59 The SOO and the Volume I outline (Section L-7.3.1) use slightly different approaches to the same job. This traceability would be enhanced, and the proposal response would be facilitated, if the Volume I outline also mapped directly into the SOO. It is suggested that either the SOO or the Volume I outline be revised such that they are more consistent.

Answer: The Draft RFP is written so that the Section L (Proposal Preparation Instructions) and Section M can be directly mapped. The Statement Of Objectives is an overarching statement of "objectives" and is not intended to directly map to either the volume one outline (Section L-7.3.1) or Section M. The Volume I outline (Section L-7.3.1) reflects the government approach to the evaluation of the offerors' Concept Definition Proposals.


Question: Nr: 60 What are the objectives and evaluation criteria of the National Missile Defense FY99 System Test.

Answer: The FY99 System Test Objectives for the National Missile Defense as outlined in Part III:

DEVELOPMENT TEST AND EVALUATION OUTLINE of the Draft NMD Test and Evaluation Master

Plan are: (1) Demonstrate end-to-end integrated system performance; (2) Demonstrate end-to-end target detection, acquisition, tracking, correlation, and handover performance; (3) Demonstrate real-time discrimination performance; (4) Demonstrate NMD system kill assessment capability; (5) Demonstrate the ability of the NMD system to develop and coordinate battle engagement plans; prepare, launch and fly out a designated weapon; and kill a threat representative target; and, (6), Demonstrate integration, interface compatibility and performance of NMD system, subsystem hardware and software, and Human-in-Control (HIC) operations.

In support of the FY99 Deployment Decision, twenty seven Performance (fourteen effectiveness and thirteen suitability) Objectives have been developed by BMDO/TRE for the FY99 Demonstration. These Objectives address the functions that the NMD system must perform, as well as interoperability, interoperability, and peacetime operations, and include:

Effectiveness Objectives

1. Demonstrate surveillance coverage to support threat representative launches and associated trajectories.

2. Demonstrate target detection, reporting (quick alert and attack assessment), and typing of all threat missile events.

3. Demonstrate end-to-end target tracking performance.

4. Demonstrate real-time discrimination.

5. Demonstrate key BMC3 functions--develop/coordinate battle plans, monitor/assess situation, warn of ballistic missile attack, coordinate/direct BMD response, and maintain mission readiness.

6. Demonstrate interoperability between the NMD system and specified external/existing systems.

7. Demonstrate interoperability between all specified internal NMD elements (communications connectivity, message handover timeliness and accuracy, and message traffic capacity).

8. Demonstrate real-time NMD HIC operations for all mission modes. Demonstrate capability to perform day-to-day functions, transition to BMD operations, command and control of operations and timeline adherence.

9. Demonstrate required interceptor kinematics and guidance capability.

10. Demonstrate that the intercept is lethal to the target.

11. Demonstrate kill assessment in a tactically realistic NMD system scenario.

12. Demonstrate multiple engagements/threat loading in a tactically realistic NMD system scenario.

13. Demonstrate that the required operational connectivity will be maintained in both natural and man-made environments.

14. Demonstrate end-to-end test, training and exercise capability.

Suitability Objectives

1. Availability Demonstration Objective - demonstrate the ability of the NMD system to meet the user threshold availability requirement for each element.

2. Computability Demonstration Objective - Demonstrate the ability of the NMD system to operate/function under representative normal and wartime scenarios.

3. Transportability Demonstration Objective - Demonstrate the ability of the system to be transported to representative operating locations in support of deployment, maintenance, and replenishment activities/timelines.

4. Interoperability Demonstration Objective - demonstrate the ability of the system to be operated/maintained/supported by multiple national and or /multinational services.

5. Reliability Demonstration Objective - Demonstrate the ability of the NMD system to meet the user specified threshold reliability requirements.

6. Maintainability Demonstration Objective - Demonstrate the ability of the NMD system to be restored to operational condition, after experiencing a failure, and within user the prescribed timelines.

7. Safety Demonstration Objective - Demonstrate the ability of the NMD system to protect or prevent death, injury, illness, or equipment loss or damage during representative normal and abnormal operations.

8. Human Factors Demonstration Objective - Demonstrate the ability of the projected personnel to operate, maintain, and support the representative normal and wartime functions

9. Manpower Supportability Demonstration Objective - demonstrate the ability to identify, acquire and maintain the skilled personnel necessary to operate and maintain the NMD system.

10. Logistics Supportability Demonstration Objective - demonstrate the ability to support the NMD system under projected peacetime and wartime scenarios.

11. Natural Environmental Effects and Impacts Demonstration Test Objective - Demonstrate the ability for the NMD system to operate in its intended natural and manmade environments.

12. Documentation Demonstration Objective - Demonstrate the ability of the NMD system support infrastructure to provide documentation that allows skilled personnel to operate and maintain the system and its functions.

13. Training Requirements Demonstration Objective - Demonstrate that the training capability provides the NMD operators and maintainers with the necessary skills and abilities to operate and maintain the system to its full potential.

The above information is included in the Draft Test and Evaluation Mater Plan for The National Missile Defense System that will be included in the LSI CD Bidder's Library. Evaluation Criteria for the National Missile Defense FY99System Test have not yet been developed.


Question: Nr: 61 Is the CD contractor to prepare a proposal for a single or a dual approach to GBI? The Industry Briefing chart entitled "CD Contract Objectives" (mj-66829) stated that trade studies and initial designs of GBI with at least two booster approaches were required - one to encompass the Minuteman (GFE)/Selected KV and Integration, and one to incorporate a contractor proposed booster/selected KV and integration. The chart entitled "LSI Proposal" (mj-66838) stated that each CD Contractor is to prepare a technical and cost proposal for LSI including a GBI proposal with 2 approaches. The SOO, submitted with version 2 of the Draft RFP, states that a selected approach (singular) should be used to develop an executable, cost effective, technical and management approach. In addition, the response to question 16 contained within the Questions and Answers Draft of 10/8/96 also implies a single GBI approach shall be selected for the LSI proposal.

Answer: The CD contractor is to select and provide one recommended approach to GBI configuration for each period of the GBI program and provide transition planning, if required. In developing their single recommended approach, offerors are to, as a minimum, analyze and document configurations for each option portrayed in Table 2.2-1 of the SOO and the rationale for selecting or not selecting each alternative approach.


Question: Nr: 62 Reference: Draft RFP dated 10/7/96. The reference and SOO for the Concept Definition (CD) Phase do not specifically address submitting a proposal as part of the six month study contract tasking. Please add the task of providing the proposal for the LSI phase to the final CD RFP


Answer A separate task to prepare and submit proposals for the LSI phase will not be added to the final CD RFP. The Government will request proposals from the CD Contractors during the CD phase. Documents needed by the Government to understand LSI CD phase contractors' concepts for integrating NMD are part of the CD phase tasking and these documents will be used as appropriate in evaluating proposals for the LSI phase. It is anticipated that the data deliverables under the CD phase will also be included in the LSI proposal.


Question: Nr: 63 Suggest that Special Provisions H-7,H-8 and H-9 be deleted since they seem to conflict with the options and rights granted under FAR Supplement clauses 252.227-7013,-7018 and -7029.

Answer: Special Contract Requirement (SCR) H-7, "All Items to Become Property of the Federal Government ," is being modified as follows:

Title to all source data and materials furnished by the Government shall remain with the Government upon completion of this contract. Title to all plans, systems analyses, reports and listings, and all other items pertaining to the work and services to be performed and delivered under this contract are considered to be "developed exclusively with government funds" as defined in DFARs 252.227-7013 (a) ( 8) for which the Government shall have "unlimited rights" as provided for in DFARS 252.227-701(b) (1). The Government shall have the full right to use each of these for its purposes without compensation or approval on the part of the contractor. The Government shall have access to and the right to make copies of the above mentioned items. However, nothing in this clause shall take precedence over the respective rights of the Government or the Contractor under the Section I clause of this contract entitled "Rights in Technical Data--Noncommercial Items" (DFARS 252.227-7013). SCR H-8, "Software Rights" is being deleted since no software is being delivered under the CD phase contracts. SCR H-9, "Identification of Technical Data and Computer Software to be Delivered with less than Unlimited Rights", is being deleted since it duplicates paragraph (e) of DFARS Clause 252.22707013. Note, however, that the revised paragraph H-7 identifying technical data with any restrictions on use, release, or disclosure is retained since it is called for by paragraph (e) of the DFARS clause. (NOTE: DFARS clause 252.227-7018 (SBIR) is not applicable to this procurement. Clause 252.227-7029 no longer exists.)


Question: Nr: 64 (a) What kind of information will the Bidder's Library contain about the design and performance of the kill vehicles being developed by the two EKV contractors? (b) Will proprietary information from the EKV contractors be shared with the bidders for the Concept Definition Phase? If so, how will this be handled?

Answer (a) At this time, the Government is negotiating with the two EKV contractors for design and performance information. Non-proprietary design and performance information will be provided. (b) No proprietary information will be made available prior to the award of the CD Phase contracts. The process for post-award handling of proprietary information is under consideration. (Note: subsequent to this answer is was determined to be not possible to include design and performance information in the Bidders Library due to "competition Sensitivity" of the information. This information may be available from the EKV contractors through associate contractor relationships.


Question: Nr: 65 When will the Bidder's Library CD-ROMs be provided? We would prefer to have a bibliography or the CD-ROMs by November 1, 1996 or at least before the release of the final RFP?

Answer The goal is to have the unclassified Bidders' Library CD-ROMs express mailed to primes during the week of the RFP release. Classified data will be shipped IAW appropriate DoD policies at the same time. Prime Contractors will be required to further distribute and control the data among members of their team.


Question: Nr: 67 Does BMDO expect the contractors to evaluate other KKV options in addition to EKV? If so, which options?

Answer: The contractors are required to develop options for proposed GBI configuration(s). These configurations can include any proposed KKV/EKV option that meets the system requirements and can be developed and deployed consistent with the program at acceptable risk and cost. The only requirement that is specific to EKV is to recommend an approach to the down select or continuation of the current competitive efforts.


Question: Nr:68 Will BMDO provide guidelines in the RFP concerning treaty issues and limitations as they apply to system architecture to ensure uniformity in the CD Phase competition?

Answer: The Government intends to provide the CD phase contractors a standard set of architecture and schedules for each of the program phases to be analyzed during the CD phase, in accordance with SOW paragraph 2.0. These will be included in the "government supplied baseline scenarios" to be provided prior to or at the CD phase "Kick-Off". These architectures will reflect a common set of treaty considerations so the CD contractor will not need to independently determine treaty compliance.


Question: Nr: 69 When will the CD library and Proprietary Agreements mentioned in Section L of the Draft RFP be made available?

Answer: The Bidders' Library compact disks and microfiche for the LSI CD Phase were express mailed to CD primeContractors on 21 Nov 96. The offerors, in turn, distributed the Library materials to their team members. The Proprietary Information Agreement was made available as Form L-1 in the Draft Version 3 of the NMD LSI CD RFP


Question: Nr: 70 General Lyles was quoted in the press last week as saying that another draft RFP will be issued in the November or December 1996 timeframe with the final RFP probably released after the first of next year. Can you confirm that General Lyles was mistaken or misquoted, and that the approximate release date of 15 November is firm?

Answer: The final RFP for the NMD LSI Concept Definition phase is scheduled for release on approximately 2 December 1996. (See Hot News item dated 12 November, 1996 for an update to this answer which states the RFP release date is 25 November, 1996.) Late changes to the RFP have caused a delay in the release of the RFP to 2 January 1997. (See Hot News item of 4 December 1996.)


Question: Nr: 71 Clause H-6: Performance of the competitive 6-month CD Phase will be highly dependent on all current Element Contractors and the SE&I Contractor fully complying with the intent of Clause H-6, Associate Contractor Relationship. Unfortunately, it will not be in these Contractors interest to comply with the intent of Clause H-6 in a straightforward and timely manner in situations where the requester is a competing Contractor, and we would observe that if more than one existing Element contractor were participating in a team competing for the 6 month CD phase, there would be even less incentive to freely cooperate within the conflict with OCI Clause stated Purpose H-4 a (2) and (3). Because the period of performance is only 6 months with an important deliverable due 90 DAC, it would appear necessary for the BMDO to take a more active role than suggested by this clause in facilitating the free and timely exchange of data if qualified non-Element Contractors are to compete. At a minimum, we strongly recommend that the Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) clause (Clause H-4) be changed to maximize an objective, competitive atmosphere for the CD Phase; specifically that the OCI Clause preclude two or more Contractors from forming a team competing for the CD Phase if more than one of these contractors Is a Prime Contractor for one or more elements comprising the NMD system. Unless a more restrictive OCI clause is incorporated in this RFP, BMDO faces a significant likelihood of diminishing competition for the subsequent LSI program.

Answer BMDO is taking an active approach to mitigate any perception of Organizational Conflict of Interest. See Clause H-4 of Version 4 of the draft NMD LSI CD Request for Proposal (RFP) on this Home-Page.


Question: Nr: 72 Subparagraph L-7.3.4b.(3): It is implied in this subparagraph that contractors competing for the CD Phase (and by implication, the subsequent LSI Program) are allowed and/or encouraged to augment the CD study effort with contractor furnished supplemental investment. since the CD Phase is intended to be a Firm fixed Price Contract for each of the selected participants, allowing contractors to supplement their studies with their own investment is contrary to providing a level playing field for complying with the requirements of the RFP for the CD and opens the door for "buying in". Unless the quote "including offeror's investment" is deleted, this also may serve to diminish or eliminate LSI competition.

Answer: Contractor investment is permitted but not required for the LSI CD contract. Since this option is available to all contractors it does not unfairly favor any contractor or contractor team. In the event that a contractor chooses to invest its own funds beyond the FFP CD contract value, the government will want to know the details in order to assess the cost realism of the proposed effort.


Question: Nr: 73 Subparagraph L-5c: Location of Documents We recognize that certain competing team structures may enjoy intrinsic benefits in having intimate familiarity with certain data essential to providing rational proposals for the CD Phase. We are concerned that sufficient time is available between the release of the library and release of the RFP to allow a full assimilation and understanding of all available data to support the CD proposal and we therefore encourage the availability of the compact discs immediately after 19 November.

Answer: The Bidders' Library compact disks and microfiche were mailed on 21 Nov 96.


Question: Nr: 74 Clauses B-2, F-2 & CDRLs A005 & A006: RFP Clause B-2 specifies a 6 month period of performance (POP); Clause F-2 specifies a 6 month POP for CLINs0001 and 0003 and a POP consistent with CDRL requirements for CLINs 0002 and 0004; and Exhibit A, CDRL, specifies a last submittal of Items A005 and A006 270 days after Contract award. Is it correct to assume that the Technical POP for this contract is 6 months (183 days assuming contract start on March 1, 1997) and that the total POP is 271 days (270 DAC).

Answer: No. The period of performance has been changed to 6 months in all cases. The last submittal of CDRLs is being changed to 180 DAC.


Question: Nr: 75 Clause H-1 and Section L-6: Clause H-1 projects that the LSI Award will occur 300 days after CD phase Contract Award. Assuming a CD contract award on March 1, 1997, LSI Phase Award would occur on December 26, 1997. Section L-6 projects an LSI Phase Award in October 1997 given a CD Phase Award in February 1997. In addition, the answer to Question NO. 18 projected CD Phase Contract Award on or about March 15, 1997. Please clarify the projected dates for the CD Phase and LSI Phase Awards.

Answer: The CD Phase is to begin on or about 3 March 1997 and the LSI Phase is planned to be awarded mid-November 1997


Question: Nr: 76 Section L-7.2.3: Is it permissible to use "landscape" format, rather than "portrait" for presentation of selected figures and tables in the proposal volumes?

Answer Yes

Question: Nr: 77 CDRL A002 NMD Integrated Master Schedule: Block 4 modifies section 10.2 of DI- MISC-81183 as follows: This schedule shall provide event visibility and structure equivalent in definition, organization and level of detail to that provided in A001. Question: The IMP typically only goes down to the accomplishment criteria level and the IMS contains the detail tasks to support the IMP. DI-MISC-88183 contains the requirement to develop 3 levels of schedules and a network. Does this change to 81183 mean to delete the requirement for the detail schedules or is it defining the content of an intermediate level schedule which would be the deliverable?

Answer: The schedule supporting the activity leading up to, and including the FY99 demo, should be provided at the detailed level. Planning for continued acquisition and deployment should be provided at an intermediate level.


Question: Nr: 78 L-7.2.2 Proposal Organization: What segmenting/compression software is authorized to store files larger than 3.4" disk capacity, and can the proposal be submitted on larger capacity removable media instead of 3.5" disks?

Answer: Yes you can use a file compression utility if necessary. The recommend utility to be used is PkZip version 2.04G. Larger capacity removable media are not authorized. However, if additional space is needed on the storage media, you can split the proposal into multiple disks. It must be clear how the data on each of the disks goes together to make a complete proposal and the bidder bears all responsibility for this approach.


Question: Nr: 79 L-7.2.2 Proposal Organization: The RFP asks for MS Word and DOS format but does not specify which version of Word and DOS is to be used? What operating system is the reviewer using (DOS, NT, or Windows).

Answer: The Government will be using the Windows 95 version of Word, i.e., Version 7.0. L-7.2.2 is being changed from "in DOS format" to read "in PC format capable of being used on terminals using Windows 95."


Question: Nr: 80 L-7.2.2 Page 97: Volume II, Personnel, under Page Limits, states only "2 pages per person." Additional material is required for the 2 tables referenced in L-7.3.2b & c.


Answer: The page limit in L-7.2.2 is being changed for volume II, Personnel, under the "PAGE LIMITS" column to read: "2 pages per person (See Form L-2) plus list and matrix." This will allow coverage for the information required by L-7.3.2b and c.


Question: Nr: 81 L-7.2.3 g (1). Page 98: Do the instructions for one-and-a -half line spacing apply to resumes?

Answer Yes


Question: Nr: 82 Form L-2, Resume Format: What is required under :RFP Labor Category"?

Answer The words "RFP Labor Category" are being changed to "LSI Position Title" on Form L-2, Resume

Format.


Question: Nr: 83 Form L-2, Resume Format: Are photographs appropriate for inclusion?

Answer No


Question: Nr: 84 Form L-3: Can we assume Form L-3 can have as many as 10 programs per person?

Answer: The left side of the matrix in Form L-3 is limited to programs meeting the criteria in L-7.3.3-a so it is extremely unlikely that any one person will have experience on 10 programs over the past five years. Experience on programs other than those submitted under L-7.3.3-a should be indicated on the right side of the matrix.


Question: Nr: 85 Part I CDRL Instructions Para 11c: The NMD Organization Intranet is specified in CDRL instructions paragraph 11c as a delivery medium. Will BMDO provide a Government Concept of Operations (GCO) of this intranet system in accordance with MIL-HDBK 59B and DoD 5010.12M? If so, when?

Answer: The RFP is being changed from "NMD Organization Intranet" to read "NMD Organization Wide Area Network (BMDO Frame Relay)." A GCO per MIL-HDBK 59B and DoD 5010.12M will not be provided. BMDO is planning to allow LSI CD Phase contractors to connect to the BMDO Frame Relay as a limited user node to facilitate the exchange of CDRL products and other information. Interconnection possibilities range from Integrated Service Digital Network (ISDN) to a T-1 line, depending on existing contractor capabilities and location. Prerequisites for LSI CD Phase contractor connection will include, as a minimum, a secured contractor server with password protection and encryption across phone lines. The government will work with the selected LSI CD Phase contractors after award to try and get connected as soon as possible. The fallback position is paper and magnetic disk deliveries of CDRL items.


Question: Nr: 86 L-1a: Will the RFP contain the proprietary information agreement with BDM? It was not found in the DRFP version 3.

Answer: No. Contractors supporting the evaluation of the technical/management volumes are already bound by their current contracts with BMDO. (Also see the answer to Question #102.)


Question: Nr: 87 Paragraph L-7.c.4.c,(1)(a): directs WBS level 3, but Cost Format A indicates a level 2. Please clarify what WBS level is required for pricing this proposal.

Answer: WBS level 3 is required for pricing this proposal as indicated in the revised Cost Format A.


Question: Nr: 88 Additional Items requested for inclusion in the Bidders Library are:

BMC3 Software Development Plan

REQUREMENTS DATA

Exo Leap Upgrade Specification NMD GBR Specification

C-1 SRR briefing UEWR Specification

Draft C-1 SRD FBXB Specification or ERD

EKV Specification BMC3 Specification

IFICs Specification

COST DATA

EKV CARD

Upgraded Exo Leap CARD

PERFORMANCE CHARACTERIZATION DATA

GBE/MM III U.S. Air Force CARD or cost estimate(s)

Answer: Some of the above data will be covered through exchanges between the Concept Development Teams and the Government at the Technical Interchange Meetings and the In-Progress Reviews. As always, if a bidders' library item becomes obsolete or overtaken by new information, the Government will notify bidders and/or update the library holdings.


Question: Nr: 89 CDRL; Block 12, 13; A005, A006: Blocks 12, 13 reflect 240 DAC and 270 DAC respectively, which are outside the contractual POP.

Answer: See answer to question 74.


Question: Nr: 90 CDRL A003 Block 16 reference to Block 13: Block 13 requires submissions of 2nd and 3rd submission at 195-235 and 270 days DAC respectively, which are outside the period of performance of the contract.

Answer: See answer to question 74. CDRL A003 will now be required 180 DAC.


Question: Nr: 91 CDRL Items A003 and A006: CDRL A003 requires delivery of an updated submission 195-235 DAC and final submission 270 DAC. CDRL A006 requires first submission 240 DAC. Contract effort is to be completed in 180 days.

Answer: See answer to question 90.


Question: Nr: 92 L-7.3.3.a Past Performance: One element of the definition of relevant contracts is listed as "the contractor's division proposed for this solicitation" Due to potential partnering companies having various structures, we are interpreting a "division" to be that portion of a Company engaged primarily in DoD contract activities, such as a Sector, Group, Division, or Operation.

Answer: Not necessarily. Sectors and Groups are typically large organizations and work done by one subordinate organization may be far enough removed (either by distance or type of work) from the work done by the organization proposed for LSI to render the past performance irrelevant. For most cases, the interpretationof "division" means the same corporate entity proposed for LSI would have signed the past performance contract. For all other cases, the burden of showing that the past performance is relevant rests with the offeror.


Question: Nr: 93 L-7.3.3.a and b Past Performance: Page 105, under References, assume (b), (c), and (d) should be (a), (b) and (c). Under participation and relevance, assume (c) and (d) should be (a) and (b). Page 106, first line, believe L-6 should be L-4.

Answer: Yes. The RFP is being corrected to show the proper paragraph numbers. (There was no text omitted on the LSI Home Page.)


Question: Nr: 94 L-7.3.2.a Personnel Resumes) Form L-2): The resume format (RFP Form L-2) requests a classification of each individual within an RFP labor category in addition to a company labor category. There is no listing of categories in the RFP.

Answer: See question 82.


Question: Nr: 95 L-7.2.(a) General Instructions: This paragraph references a Form L-2 as a crosswalk matrix for the LSI CD Phase. The Form L-2 provided in the draft RFP is the required resume format to be used in Vol. II (Personnel). There is a Crosswalk Matrix provided as Attachment 4 to the RFP (See Section J). It is unclear what the proposal requirement is regarding the crosswalk matrix.

Answer: The reference to Form L-2 was in error. The reference was intended to be the Crosswalk Matrix which is being moved to Section L, Attachment 1.


Question: Nr: 96 L-7.3.2 Personnel Resumes and Personnel Experience: Paragraphs L-7.3.2.(a) and (c) refer to two forms (L-3 and L-4). The corresponding forms (Resumes, Personnel Experience Matrix) provided in RFP Section J are labeled as L-2 and L-3. In addition, RFP section L-7.2 refers to Form L-2 as a Crosswalk Matrix. Form referencing is unclear.

Answer: The form references were incorrect and have been corrected to read L-2 and L-3 in the RFP. For the Crosswalk Matrix, see question 95.


Question: Nr: 97 L-7.2.2 Proposal Organization (Submittal): The RFP calls for submittal of "two sets of identical high-density 3.5 inch disks on DOS format." Due to the size of some of the files, is it acceptable to submit the electronic submissions on two sets of identical Zip, SyQuest, or Bernoulli cartridges. (PC format for Windows 95)?

Answer: See the answer to question 78.


Question: Nr: 98 Will the C1 Phase SRR be made available for the CD Phase proposal period.

Answer: The results of the SRR and subsequent SRD's will be made available to contractors as soon as they are released. This may or may not be in time for the CD phase proposal period.


Question: Nr: 99 Will the C1 Phase SRD be made available for CD contract phase?

Answer: The results of the SRR and subsequent SRD's will be made available to contractors as soon as they are released. This may or may not be in time for the CD phase proposal period.


Question: Nr: 100 Are the IPR's and CDRL's deliveries scheduled too early, given the preparation time required ? It may result in data content that is immature.

Answer: No. The government understands that content may evolve during execution of the CD phase. The CDRL dates allow for incremental presentation of progress, and any required government comments on the technical product


Question: Nr: 101 Are Sections H-1 and L-6 in conflict regarding the program schedule? Section H-1 states the LSI Phase II award is four months after the end of the CD Study (Phase I). This is the same as four months after the submittal of the LSI Phase II proposal. Section L-6 states the award of Phase II is one month after the completion of the Phase I CD Study.

Answer: The CD Phase is to begin on or about 3 March 1997 and the LSI Phase is planned to be awarded mid-November 1997. These dates have been incorporated into the RFP.


Question: Nr: 102 Reference Section L-8 and the evaluation by non-government personnel. Issue: DSR and SPC are to evaluate offerors' cost volumes, which contain proprietary rates which industry does not necessarily disclose to even its teammates. Recommendation: Restrict cost volume data for DSR and SPC to only costs or hours and not rates, or other data that could imply rates. Rates can be certified by government through normal channels.

Answer BMDO frequently uses DSR and other selected contractors to develop work products in support of cost evaluations. Bidders' proprietary cost data and rates are physically protected at all times and are made available only to specific contractor personnel having a valid "need-to-know". Such personnel are bound by the Procurement Integrity Act and required certifications and are not permitted, under penalty of law, to participate in any type of activity where access to proprietary data could knowingly create a competitive advantage. The RFP will include Proprietary Information Agreements for contractors with "need-to-know" that will have access to the cost volume. A copy of the agreement is provided in the draft RFP. Rate certification will be performed by Government personnel only. Contractors supporting the evaluation of the technical/management volumes are already bound by their current contracts with BMDO.


Question: Nr: 103 What data for each LSI element will be provided to perform the Life Cycle Cost estimate at the LSI top level? Will any government cost models be provided?

Answer: The bidder's library contains non-proprietary data and information to assist the CD Phase contractors in preparing their Life Cycle Cost estimates. Supplements may be provided if additional data becomes available.The government does not intend to provide cost models in the bidder's library.


Question: Nr: 104 If information is required from an associate contractor, how will that contractor be paid for their efforts in providing the information? Has the Government allocated funding to each contract to support the LSI information exchange, or will the requesting LSI contractor need to provide funding?

Answer The Government has an agreement in principle with potential associate contractors to provide data for LSI CD teams for use in contract execution. Resolution of the terms under which required information is exchanged is the responsibility of the respective contractors.


Question: Nr: 105 It appears that several sections of the RFP discuss the three program objectives/phases, but they are all different. Could you use the same definitions (calendar or fiscal year, same year, same verbs and work content, four Vs three parts, etc.) for the "three" parts of the program in all sections of the RFP so we may clearly understand the program for which we are planning?

Answer: Concur, the RFP has been changed to reflect a consistent three phase approach.


Question: Nr: 106 It is not clear what is required in Appendices B and C of the IMP. What process descriptions are being requested? What is meant by the statement that the process descriptions are in accordance with the common numbering system used in the WBS?

Answer Appendix B should include detailed process descriptions that are common to multiple options, phases or tasks areas. They need not be replicated in all sections, but should reference the common numbering system so that they can be related to the IMP processes.Appendix C is should provide visibility of the major functional objectives (Test and Evaluation, individual element developments) that are integrated by the IMP processes. These Appendices are intended to avoid development of redundant plans for each element and activity by having the IMP contents presented from different perspectives.


Question: Nr: 107 Could the Government provide a PWBS for level one (NMD System) and level two (NMD Elements) with the guidance that the contractor expand on the PWBS to create a CWBS which is in accordance with the contractor's implementation of IPPD and the contractor's management approach?

Answer: A Cost Breakdown Structure (CBS) is contained in the Terms of Reference document that will be available in the Bidders Library to support the contractor's development of an NMD Life Cycle Cost estimate. Offerors are encouraged to develop their own PWBS based upon their proposed LSI approach. This is not to be confused with the WBS provided in the CD phase Cost Proposal instructions.


Question: Nr: 108 Classified information is being treated in a separate appendix. If alpha-numeric codes are used in the unclassified volume within the context of the narrative or graphic, will it be possible to submit a table of classified values relating to the alpha-numeric codes - referenced to the main volume - without a page count penalty?

Answer: The Government believes that the LSI Concept Definition proposal can be completed without including classified data. If, however, the bidder chooses to include classified information, those pages will be included in the page count and subject to the established limits.


Question: Nr: 109 Since the expected release date of the RFP is now December 4th, has the delivery date changed? Will we be expected to deliver the proposal 30 days after receipt of the RFP or is there some other plan for delivery? Please notify the bidders of how many days after receipt of the RFP will the proposal be due. We need this for planning purposes, since our teams may have to work through the holidays. Thank you.

Answer: The proposal will be due 30 days after issuance of the RFP. (Also see the answer to question #70.)


Question: Nr. 110 We would like to request a formal briefing on ABM Treaty Compliance. We request that this briefing be given as soon as possible so that the information can be used during the proposal and CD phase of the LSI effort. It may be appropriate to deliver the briefing to all of the LSI bidder's, but at a minimum, we would like to have such a briefing.

Answer: Special Contract Requirement (SCR) H-11, "ABM Treaty Compliance," is being changed to read as follows:"The NMD system architecture designed for deployment does not have to be constrained by all provisions of the ABM Treaty; it must meet the performance requirements of the NMD Systems Requirements Document. Activities during the development phase of the NMD system, beginning with the testing of any component (I.e., ABM interceptor ABMD Radar, or ABF launcher) prototype, however, must comply with all provisions of the ABM Treaty. The Government will provide treaty interpretation and treaty application assistance as required."

Since the LSI CD phase does not involve any actual development or testing activities, there is no need for additional detailed information concerning ABM Treaty interpretation in order to submit an LSI CD proposal. As indicated in SCR H-11, treaty interpretation and treaty application assistance will be provided as needed to LSI CD contractors after the award of the LSI CD contracts. Therefore, there is no need for a "Treaty Compliance" briefing prior to release of the LSI CD RFP.


Question: Nr. 111 The "NMD Capability 2 System Requirements Review (SRR)" document on the classified CD ROM contains the following statement on each page: "Not to be reproduced without written permission from BMDO". Will BMDO please provide the written permission to reproduce this document?

Answer: The "NMD Capability 2 System Requirements Review (SRR)" document provided on the classified CD ROM of the NMD LSI Bidders library is a copy of the original document. Authorized recipients of the NMD LSI Bidders Library may, in accordance with the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), reproduce any of the documents provided in the classified CD ROM of the NMD Bidders Library.


Question: Nr. 112 Item #1 -- The 12/20/96 Executive Summary indicates that the LSI Execution Phase Proposal will be due 6 months after award of the CD Phase contract. It also indicates that instructions for the Execution Phase Proposal will be issued 4 months into the CD Phase contract with an update approximately 6 weeks later. The Draft RFP (Section F-2 on page 7 of 83) indicates that the LSI Execution Phase Proposal will be submitted on September 29, 1997 (approx. seven months after award of the CD Phase contract).

Questions: (a) Which is the correct due date - 6 months (60 day proposal) or 7 months (90 day proposal)? Updating the proposal instructions 6 weeks into an 8 week proposal period (60 days) is too late into the proposal cycle. It would either not affect the outcome of the proposal or be extremely disruptive. (b) Is the 6 week update tied to a Government decision/review point? Does this somehow relate to the Government's evaluation of the draft IMP/IMS due July 29, 1997 (Draft RFP Section F-2)? Please provide some insight about the planned update.

Answer: a. The entire LSI Downselect proposal process has undergone major changes. Section F of the RFP was modified to show a CD Phase contract award on 18 March, release of the LSI downselect RFP at the end of June 97 and a proposal due mid-October 97. Award of the LSI downselect contract is planned for mid- January 98 with potential for award acceleration into December 97. The relatively long period of time between release of the LSI downselect RFP and the proposal due date is to allow the contractors maximum time to prepare their proposals and to incorporate any desired changes stemming from interactions with the Government on CD Phase deliverables.

b. There is no longer an update planned for the LSI downselect RFP. CD Phase contractors will receive comments from the Government on their CD Phase draft deliverables and the contractors can use those comments as they see fit in the formal CD Phase deliverables and in their LSI downselect proposals.


Question: Nr. 113 Item #2 -- Questions/comments relative to SOO paragraph 2.2.

  1. There is some overlap between Table 1.0-1, and the four bullets in paragraph 2.2; and between the first, second, and fourth paragraph of 2.2.

  2. It is not clear if the multi-site deployment is part of C1, C2, or C3. Please provide additional direction or clarification concerning the multi-site deployment.

(c) We recommend that the language in the 12/20/96 version of the SOO be changed as follows:

"2.2 GBI Development:

The contractor shall analyze GBI alternatives, shown in Table 2.2-1, (including infrastructure, booster and Kill Vehicle) and recommend a GBI program that addresses the LSI program phases shown in Table 1.0- 1. The contractor shall analyze and document the programmatic and technical implications of applying each of the alternatives for GBI development shown in Table 2.2-1 (as a minimum). to the following applications:

· Base Period (FY 99 Demonstration and Deployment Readiness Review)

· Continued development towards the CRD Objective requirements NMD System (C2 Architecture)

· Optional deployment anytime after the Readiness Review (C1 Architecture)

· A multi-sited deployment, if required

The contractor shall document the performance, schedule and cost implications of each alternative shown in Table 2.2-1 for each of the above applications.

(No Change to SOO Table 2.2-1)

The contractor shall recommend appropriate GBI alternatives that address requirements for periods indicated in Table 1.0-1, the above applications of the GBI program and provide configuration transition planning, if required. The Contractor shall document the rationale for selection of each booster/infrastructure alternative. The contractor shall provide a Kill Vehicle selection/down selection plan, including consideration of cost, schedule, performance and risk impacts, and provide the proposed selection criteria that will be applied.

The Contractor shall develop an executable, cost effective, technical and management approach, rationale and schedule for design, development, test and evaluation, production, and deployment of the selected GBI approach. The contractor shall reflect this GBI approach in the NMD Integration Concept provided in response to paragraph 2.1."

Answer: a. The overlap between Table 1.0-1, the four bullets in paragraph 2.2; and also between the first, second and fourth paragraph of 2.2, stresses the importance of this information.

b. Multi-site deployment may be a driver in the (as yet incomplete) C3 Architecture. CD Teams will be briefed by the Government on the C3 Architecture progress.

c. The proposed language submitted in this question will not be included in the final SOO.


Question: Nr: 114 Suggested change to correct Section L: (1) Change page L-20 to switch the titles of Forms L-4 and L-5 to read: Form L-4 Past Performance Questionnaire and L-5 Format for Recording Past Performance; (2) Add a reference to Form L-5 in paragraph L-7.3.3.a; and, (3), Change the reference in paragraph L- 7.3.3.b from Form L-5 to Form L-4.

Answer Recommendations accepted.


Question: Nr: 115 Re: Page 70 of 83 (L-13) paragraph L-7.3.3.a, page 64 of 83 (L-7), paragraph L-7.2.2, and Form L-4 - "Format for Recording Past Performance." Are Bidders permitted to include introductory/summary text as part of Volume III?

Answer Yes. Introductory and summary text may be included as it may apply to past performance.


Question: Nr: 116 Re: Page 64 of 83 (L-7), paragraph L-7.2.2, and Form L-4, "Format for Recording Past Performance." The previous draft RFP (version 3) implied that the "Format for Recording Past Performance" in Volume III was to be limited to 2 pages per contract. Since Volume III is no longer page limited, may we use more than 2 pages (if required) to describe each contract?

Answer Yes. Volume III no longer has a page limitation.


Question: Nr: 117 Re: Form L-4 "Format for Recording Past Performance"

Is the "Format for Recording Past Performance" limited to narrative text/bullets, or may charts and figures be included on the form? Is narrative text on the "Format for Recording Past Performance" required to conform to the same style requirements as the rest of the proposal (line-and-a-half spacing, font size requirements, etc.)?

Answer Charts and figures may be included in Form L-5 "Format for Recording Past Performance." Narrative text is required to conform to the same style requirements as the rest of the proposal.


Question: Nr: 118 Re: L-7.3.2 Personnel Resumes and Personnel Experience Matrix (Vol. 11)

Paragraph L-7.3.2 (a) limits resume submittals (Form L-2) to "key" personnel. Paragraph L-7.3.2 (b) requests specific information on "Key Personnel", most of which is explicitly requested on Resume Form L-2. Is it the Government's intent to evaluate the same information in two separate sections within the same volume?

Answer: Requirements identified in paragraph L-7.3.2 (a) and (b) are to be provided by offerors. Offerors are free to identify those individuals considered to be "key personnel".


Question: Nr: 119 Page 3 of the Executive Summary indicated the LSI Proposal is due 6 months after CD award (not 7 months as indicated in F-2). Is 6 months correct?

Answer: A final decision on the proposal due date has not been made. The Executive Summary and F will be consistent in the final release.


Question: Nr: 120 Could the Government please provide clarification on their plan for the scope and content of the LSI Execution Phase proposals? Statements in the Executive Summary could be interpreted to indicate the LSI proposal is only a cost volume, which is a companion to the CD product.

Answer The LSI Proposal will include more than a cost volume. A RFP will be published (See paragraph F-2 for timing) which will contain detailed requirements for the LSI Phase proposal.


Question: Nr: 121 Section F indicates that there is only one IPR and it is to be held on 2-5 June. The Executive Summary states that the IPR is to be at a time proposed by the contractor, but not later than 4 months after contract award. We recommend that Section F be modified to be consistent with the Executive Summary.

Answer The date for the IPR is flexible within reason. Paragraph F-2 will be revised to reflect this flexibility.


Question: Nr: 122 Re: RFP Section B-1 and Format L-6: Cost Formats A (Page 3 of 3) and B The referenced RFP section requires pricing for CLINS 0002 and 0004 and identifies CLINS 0001 and 0003 as "NSP". Referenced cost formats request pricing information for CLINS 0001 and 0003. We recommend that CLIN definition of Formats A and B be changed to be consistent with Section B.

Answer: Cost formats L-6 and L-7 are correct and are intended to be separate and distinct from Section B-1. CLINs 0002 and 0004 represent the products of the effort performed under CLINs 0001 and 0003. Provide pricing information for the effort to be performed under CLINS 0001 and 0003. The costs/price for CLIN 0001 must include the cost for CLIN 0002 data and reports, and the costs/price for CLIN 0003 must include the costs for CLIN 0004 data and reports


Question: Nr: 123 Form L-5 "Format for Recording Past Performance" requests "Type of Work (see 7.3.3.a for options)." Paragraph 7.3.3.a no longer lists categories for types of work. Should we use the work categories identified in Section 7.3.1 paragraph 2.1?

Answer Form L-5 "Format for Recording Past Performance" will be modified to indicate that the categories identified in Section 7.3.1 paragraph 2.1 should be used.


Question: Nr: 124 Form L-5 "Format for Recording Past Performance" requests "Rank order of relevance to RFP SOO

requirements (1-10)." Since Volume III is no longer limited to 10 contracts, we recommend deleting parenthetical reference.

Answer: The numbers in parenthesis "(1-10)" will be changed to "(1-n)". The requirement to rank order relevance of past performance will be retained.

Question: Nr: 125 Will the Army led Joint Service Team advice to BMDO on the GBI alternatives and recommendation products be provided to the CD contractors?

Answer: Army led Joint Service Team advice to BMDO on the GBI alternatives and recommendation products will not be provided to Offerors. It is the Government's intent that Offerors provide an independent recommendation that is not influenced by the advice provided to BMDO by the JST on the CD Contractors GBI alternatives and recommendation products which are part of the evaluation process.


Question: Nr. 126 Will this advice (see question 125) include a recommended approach to GBI?

Answer: See answer to question 125.


Question: Nr: 127 Will this information (see question 125) be available to the contractors in sufficient time to allow the contractors to reflect this decision in their LSI Execution Phase Proposals?

Answer See answer to questions 125..


Question: Nr. 128 The RESUME FORMAT, Form L-2, indents one-half inch (.5) for the data to be included in paragraph 8: Work Experience. Is this indentation a requirement

Answer: Indentation for data to be included is paragraph 8 of Form L-2 (RESUME FORMAT) is not a requirement.