Docstoc

Separation Agreement and Non Solicitation

Document Sample
Separation Agreement and Non Solicitation Powered By Docstoc
					                       Multi-Purpose Bomb Rack (BRU-69/A)
                           Draft RFP N00019-08-R-0058
                              Questions and Answers


1. Solicitation Reference: NAVAIR Clause 5252.215-9505 Exclusive Teaming Arrangements
Which Inhibit Competition

Comment: Is it the Governments intention to require disclosure of Teaming Agreements in all
situations where two competitors, either one individually is capable of delivering the end item BRU-
69/A Bomb Rack, team together to propose on the MPBR program. Once notified of the situation,
the Navy would then determine it such an agreement would inhibit competition.

Response: Yes. The offerors will be required to submit copies of their teaming arrangement with a
discussion regarding why the arrangement will not inhibit competition. The Offerors are required to
notify the Government of all teaming arrangements, including verbal, whether prime, sub, supplier,
etc. and a discussion regarding why the arrangement will not inhibit competition.




2. Solicitation Reference: Table 2 contained in Attachment (2) BRU-69/A System Performance
Specification PMA201-07005 dated 15 May 2008

Comment: In reference to Table 2 of the Performance Specification, please clarify the requirement
with regards to release of practice stores (BDU-33/BDU-48/Mk 76 and Mk 106) and flares (LUU-
2/LUU-19)? Typical deployment of practice store weapons is for gravity release. Is it the intent that
the BRU-69/A MPBR will also gravity release the above weapons or is there a requirement for forced
ejection?

Response: The Government considers the method of release for the cited stores to be a offeror’s
specific design detail. The current requirement is performance based for safe separation of these
stores from the BRU-69/A, regardless of method. However, note that the practice stores cited
currently utilize a forced ejection by means of a spring loaded bracket and are not considered gravity
release. In addition, LUU-2 flares are piston ejected with a spring loaded bracket.
3. Solicitation Reference: Paragraph 3.1.1.6.2 of Attachment (2) BRU-69/A System Performance
Specification PMA201-07005 dated 15 May 2008 and Attachment (3) BRU-69/A Multiple Purpose
Bomb Rack Interface Control Document dated 15 May 2008

Comment: Please clarify the mass requirement of the BRU-69/A MPBR? The Performance
Specification paragraph 3.1.1.6.2 provides a Not to Exceed (NTE) mass requirement of 230 lbs
whereas the Interface Control document (ICD) 3960AS199 provides a NTE mass requirement of 235
lbs.

Response: The 230 lbs mass requirement staqted in the performance specification is correct. The
ICD has the weight listed incorrectly and will be corrected.




4. Solicitation Reference: Paragraph 3.2 of Attachment (2) BRU-69/A System Performance
Specification PMA201-07005 dated 15 May 2008

Comment: Please could the Customer define “separation of store” event in section 3.2.19. Does this
pertain to the opening of hooks or last contact of store with piston interface?

Response: The government will modify par. 3.2.1.9 to read as follows: "After all swaybraces have
been activated, the store shall be held securely in all three axes until the store is clear of the
swaybraces upon release. Swaybraces shall be designed so that they cannot apply excessive loads to
the store or BRU-69/A MPBR to prevent store release. [MPBR0392]"




5. Solicitation Reference: Figure 3 in Attachment (2) BRU-69/A System Performance
Specification PMA201-07005 dated 15 May 2008

Comment: Figure 3 “Temperature/Humidity/Altitude cycling” does not appear to be associated with
the section 3.2.5.3.2 “Captive Carriage Altitude” after which it appears. Does this figure belong in
another section?

Response: Figure 3 will be moved to follow paragraph 3.2.5.2.2 “Captive Carriage Humidity”
6. Solicitation Reference: Not specified

Comment: Will the Government provide dynamically representative dummy stores as GFE to
support the SDD development phase?

Response: No. If the offerors requests GFE over and above what is defined in the RFP, it must be
requested in accordance with Section L.




7. Solicitation Reference: Attachment (7) Proposal BRU-69/A Program Schedule

Comment: Attachment 7 of the Draft RFP provides a BRU-69/A program schedule which identifies
LRIP and FRP. However, no production quantities are mentioned within the RFP. Please clarify the
intent to include information on production quantities within the full RFP in order for vendors to
calculate the total service life costs as well as logistic support and maintenance concepts? (See
comments on Question 12). As a minimum, quantities could have an impact on vendors submitted
technology data package price if applicable. Furthermore, can the Government please provide
information on expected production lot quantities?

Response: LRIP and Full Rate Production (FRP) is not part of this solicitation. The Government
may provide estimated quantities for planning purposes only.




8. Solicitation Reference: Draft RFP Section F paragraph F3.

Comment: Page 12 of 79 of the main RFP mentions Item 0003 which does not exist. Is the correct
reference to Option 0101.

Response: Yes, It should read Option Item 0101.
9. Solicitation Reference: Section L and M

Comment: Section L and M are missing.

Response: Section L and M will be provided with release of the Formal RFP.




10. Solicitation Reference: Section H paragraph H2 – Option Exercise

Comment: Page 20 of 79 of the main RFP mentions a maximum quantity specified in Section B –
however no quantities are stated in Section B.

Response: The reference CLIN should read Option Item 0101 vice Option Item 0003. Section B
will be correct before release of the formal RFP.




11. Solicitation Reference: Section B of Draft RFP

Comment: NAVAIR previously published synopses indicated production quantities of 2475.
Acquiring SDD separate and apart from LRIP and Production without including or evaluating
production costs will not reflect a best value design as different designs can result in significant
differences in production costs. Will the Government consider modifying the current RFP to include
Option Years for LRIP and Production options for quantity 2486 to be priced and proposed as part of
Section b and evaluated in Section M? Recommend quantity buys consistent with budgetary data as
27 test units (as defined in this RFP), LRIP of 59, and four production options of quantity 300, 300,
300 and 1500. Options can be exercised by the Government at their discretion after SDD and offers
the Government maximum contracting flexibility and a better basis to evaluate SDD offers.
Recommend Section M total evaluated cost be the combination of SDD non-recurring engineering
costs and production costs for 2486.

Response:    See Answer to Question 7.
12. Solicitation Reference: Section B of the Draft RFP

Comment: CLIN 0002 states FFP and also NSP. Please clarify that the CLIN is NSP.

Response: This CLIN 0002 should be Not Separately Priced (NSP). Section B will be correct
before release of the formal RFP.




13. Solicitation Reference: Section B of the Draft RFP

Comment: Please provide the under run and overrun Share ratio, or does the government expect the
contractor to complete?

Response: Will be addressed in the Formal RFP release.




14. Solicitation Reference: Section F, paragraph F3 of the Draft RFP

Comment: To what level of Technical Data Package (TDP) does the government intend to receive
at the end of SDD as a deliverable? Recommend the government define the following TDP
requirements as an SDD deliverable:

Deliverable shall include a technical data package (TDP) that enables competitive reprocurement of
the complete BRU-69 as well as all shop replaceable assemblies (SRAs) at the O and I level
maintenance facilities as defined by the government. The government intends maintenance
philosophy to be consistent with current Aircraft Armament Suspension and Release Equipment
fielded by the US Navy.

TDP requirements include the following:

1. Drawings for SRAs shall be vendor item drawings to include ICDs and performance requirements
to enable qualification of new SRA suppliers.
2. All drawings shall utilize industry-wide standard (not contractor or supplier specific)
specifications for materials, processes, and fasteners.
3. References or requirements to utilize proprietary master tooling for production are not allowed.
4. Drawings for special production tooling shall be included as part of the TDP. For purposes of this
bid, casting and forging tooling drawings are not required provided finished forging and casting
drawings enable second sources to develop their own tooling
5. Drawings for Critical Application or Critical Safety Items (CAI/CSI) shall comply with
NAVAIRINST4200.25D.
6. Drawings shall comply with ASME Standard Y14.100 2004 Revision
7. Subcomponent level qualification and lot testing requirements shall not require the use of any
proprietary test equipment or procedures.
8. Complete parts lists and product breakdown structure shall be included as part of the TDP.
9. Pro/E models of the complete assembly down to the SRA level shall be included with the TDP.
10. Parts numbering structure will be to an "AS" NAVAIR design series to be provided by the
government.
11. Software source code

Response: Concur. The solicitation will include a detailed description of the TDP in the formal RFP
release.




15. Solicitation Reference: Section H, paragraph H1 of the Draft RFP

Comment: Does the Government anticipate providing a complete draft incentive fee plan prior to
Final RFP release?

Response: No. The incentive fee plan will be provided in the Formal RFP.




16. Solicitation Reference: Section H, paragraph H5.4 5252.215-9505 Exclusive Teaming
Arrangements Which Inhibit Competition of the Draft RFP

Comment: Paragraph H5.4 describes a process intended to enhance competition. If any prime
offeror is aware that any of its suppliers have decided to quote to that prime offeror only and declines
to bid to other primer offerors, we interpret this clause as requiring disclosure of this information in
the prim’s proposal. In addition, we interpret this clause as requiring that the prime offeror provide
an explanation of how this situation does not inhibit competition. To be clear, the interpretation of
the clause is requiring disclosure of such a circumstance even in the absence of a written teaming
agreement. Is this interpretation correct?

Response: Yes. See Answer to Question 1
17. Solicitation Reference: Section I of the Draft RFP

Comments: Request that clause 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors, Alt II be incorporated into the
RFP as it allows for Alternate Proposals. The Performance Specification states alternative design
proposals (Outside of OML) will be considered as long as they do not negatively impact overall cost
or schedule for the SDD effort.

Response: All appropriate clauses will be incorporated in the Formal RFP.




18. Solicitation Reference: Section J of the Draft RFP

Comments: Draft RFP did not include CDRLs Exhibits or List. Does the Government anticipate
releasing Exhibits or List before Final RFP release?

Response: CDRLs will be provide with Formal RFP release.




19. Solicitation Reference: Section K, paragraph K2.5 of the Draft RFP

Comments: Not requesting production options does not afford the Government to take advantage of
the Economic Purchase Quantity clause specified. Will the Government consider modifying the
current RFP to include Option years for LRIP and Production options for quantity 2486 to be priced
and proposed as part of Section B and evaluated in Section M? Recommend quantity buys consistent
with budgetary data as 27 test units (as defined in the RFP), LRIP of 59, and four production options
of quantity 300, 300, 300 and 1500. Options to be exercised by the Government at their discretion
after SDD offers the government maximum contracting flexibility and a better basis to evaluate SDD
offers. Recommend Section M total evaluated cost be the combination of SDD non-recurring
engineering costs and production cost for 2486 to maximize Economic Purchase Quantity cost
savings.

Response: See Answer to Question 7.
`


20. Solicitation Reference: Section L and M of the Draft RFP

Comments: Section L&M not included. Requirements of each of these sections is critical to a bid,
no bid and investment decision. Does the Government intend to release a draft of these sections
before final RFP release.

Response: See Answer to Question 9.




21. Solicitation Reference: Section M of the Draft RFP

Comments: Does the Government intend to include Production costs in the Section M criteria?
Design differences can significantly affect production costs, and we believe best value can only be
achieved by considering production cost as a significant Section M criteria. Recommend Section M
total evaluated cost be the combination of SDD non-recurring engineering costs and production cost
for 2486.

Response: See Answer to Question 7




22. Solicitation Reference: Table 4 of Attachment (1) Statement of Objectives for the BUR-69/A
Multiple Purpose Bomb Rack dated 28 May 2008

Comment: To achieve RCS objective requirements, will the Government allow for changes to other
specification requirements within the trade space (e.g. weight, OML, CG, cost, etc) to achieve this
objective? Recommend offerors be allowed to make design trades to achieve objective. Please
prioritize trades to achieve the objective.

Response: Achievement of all Threshold requirements takes precedence over achievement of any
Objective requirement. The Offerors are free to submit supplemental proposals that contain design
trades that differ from this policy, so long as the base proposal conforms to all RFP requirements.
23. Solicitation Reference: Paragraph 3.2.5.14.15 of Attachment (2) BRU-69/A Performance
System Specification PMA201-07005 dated 15 May 2008.

Comment: Requires meeting a TEMPEST requirement. Is this a correct requirement? This appears
inconsistent with currently deployed AAE and will significantly drive cost. For design purposes,
what data requires TEMPEST protection? Recommend this requirement be deleted or identified as
an objective statement.

Response: This requirement will be deleted prior to the Formal RFP release.




24. Solicitation Reference: Table 3 of Attachment (2) BRU-69/A Performance System
Specification PMA201-07005 dated 15 May 2008.

Comment: Specifying a weight of 230 pounds is restricting trade alternatives and potential cost and
performance enhancements. Recommend 270 lbs be specified as the threshold requirement, and 250
lbs as an objective requirement to accommodate enhancements over the BRU 55 such as pneumatic
system components.

Response: The design weight (230 lb) will remain as specified.




25. Solicitation Reference: Figure 2 of Attachment (2) BRU-69/A Performance System
Specification PMA201-07005 dated 15 May 2008.

Comment: Please confirm that gravity release is to be used for practice bombs and stores less than
200 pounds.

Response: See Answer to Question 2.
26. Solicitation Reference: Page 15, paragraph 2 of Attachment (2) BRU-69/A Performance
System Specification PMA201-07005 dated 15 May 2008.

Comment: When does the Government intend to release the draft or final CDD?

Response: The Government does not intend to release the CDD to industry. All content relevant to
this RFP has been referenced in the Statement of Objectives and Performance Specification.




27. Solicitation Reference: Page 28, MPBR 0336 of Attachment (2) BRU-69/A Performance
System Specification PMA201-07005 dated 15 May 2008.

Comment: MPBR0336. The purity requirement on the compressed air exceeds what a bomb rack
would require to prevent fouling or freezing and is a cost driver. This degree of purity is more typical
with that of a missile seeker head. Recommend deleting this from the performance specification.

Response: MIL-STD-2088 provides the air purity and moisture content requirements applicable to
MPBR, if the requirement for a non –pyrotechnic ejection system is being met with a pneumatic
system.




28. Solicitation Reference: Paragraph 3.2.1.1 on Page 27, of Attachment (2) BRU-69/A
Performance System Specification PMA201-07005 dated 15 May 2008.

Comment: Recommend this requirement (MPBR0326) be made not applicable to practice bombs
consistent with current practice.

Response: The Government concurs that this requirement does not apply to the lightweight practice
stores. The specification will be updated to clarify this requirement prior to Formal RFP release.
29. Solicitation Reference: Attachment (2) BRU-69/A Performance System Specification
PMA201-07005 dated 15 May 2008.

Comment: Suggest changes to allow design flexibility within a trade space to achieve key
performance specifications. For example, section 3.2.1.1 which discusses internal items required for
check valves, over-pressurization compensation, the maximum ppm of water and particle size
requirement for the internal pneumatic system (this drives/restricts filter size and charging time/flow
rate), leakage rate, and pressure balance, etc. The current approach restricts design ideas, alternatives
and approaches that may provide beneficial to cost, weight, RCS, or other such performance
characteristics and program objectives, but are not allowed to be introduced due to specific and
restrictive specification requirements. Recommend removing all non-performance based
requirements from the specification to allow design trades between cost, weight, product size, etc to
achieve key performance specification objectives.

Response: The examples cited in this comment apply only in the event that a pneumatic system is
proposed to satisfy requirement that the MPBR be non-pyrotechnic. MIL-STD-2088 was updated in
2007 to include pneumatic operation of bomb racks and is referenced by the MPBR Performance
Specification. Previous experience with pneumatic systems indicates that the particle size and
moisture content requirements are not only necessary but also that they are achievable. Examples of
specific components that could be used to perform a particular function (e.g., check valves) are only
for illustration and are not to be interpreted as requirements.




30. Solicitation Reference: Paragraph 3.2.1.6.1 of Attachment (2) BRU-69/A Performance System
Specification PMA201-07005 dated 15 May 2008.

Comment: Mid station arming unit. This requirement is adding weight, cost, and complexity to the
design that may not be needed to meet threshold requirements. Recommend this requirement be
deleted or specified as an objective requirement.

Response: The mid station arming unit is a requirement to increase fuzing configuration flexibility.
31. Solicitation Reference: Attachment (16) Additional Technical Data

Comment: Considering the mission criticality, reliability and objective platform requirements of the
BRU-69 which requires complex integration of electrical, mechanical, and software components, and
design for lowest integrated logistics support (ILS) costs, recommend SEI CMMI Level 3 for
Systems be added as a prime offeror requirement at proposal submission to address EVMS, Risk
Management, requirements Management and Flow Dow, etc. Considering critical nature of
pneumatic control systems, MIL-STD-1760 requirements, and UAI thresholds and objectives,
recommend Level 3 requirement for software should be updated and made a requirement for the
prime offeror at proposal submission.

Response: CMMI Level 3 for Software is a requirement stated in Section L which will be released
with the Final RFP. CMMI Level 3 for Systems will not be a requirement.




32. Solicitation Reference: Paragraph 3.1.2 of Addendum (1) Supplemental Guidance for the BRU-
69/A Multiple Purpose Bomb Rack Statement of Objectives dated 15 May 2008

Comment: Is MS Project an acceptable tool to use for this requirement?

Response: Yes. Offerors may use Microsoft Office 2000 format or higher format as long as that
format is backward compatible with Microsoft Office 2000.




33. Solicitation Reference: Paragraph 3.2.1.9 of Attachment (2) BRU-69/A Performance System
Specification PMA201-07005 dated 15 May 2008.

Comment: The range of store diameters in this paragraph does not represent all of the stores
required per Table 2. Store Diameter Range 8-20”, GBU-39 (from Weapons list) is 6”.

Response: The performance specification will be updated to clarify store diameter requirements:
6.0” to 20.0”
34. Solicitation Reference: Paragraph 3.2.1.14.2 (m) of Attachment (2) BRU-69/A Performance
System Specification PMA201-07005 dated 15 May 2008.

Comment: There is currently no approved fiber optic contact for use in the MIL-STD-1760
connector.

Response: Market research indicates that there are commercially available contacts/terminals for
fiber channel use with MIL-STD-1760 (compliant with MIL-C-38999).




35. Solicitation Reference: Paragraph 3.2.1.14.4.1 of Attachment (2) BRU-69/A Performance
System Specification PMA201-07005 dated 15 May 2008.

Comment: JMMI is, by definition, not compliant with AS5725.

Response: The Government concurs. MMSI will be supported by the MPBR. JMMI will not be a
requirement. The specification will be updated prior to Formal RFP release.




36. Solicitation Reference: Paragraph 3.2.1.14.4.1 of Attachment (2) BRU-69/A Performance
System Specification PMA201-07005 dated 15 May 2008.

Comment: The requirements for Link mode are defined in AS5652 not AS5725.

Response: The specification will be updated to clarify Link Mode requirements prior to Formal RFP
release.




37. Solicitation Reference: Paragraph 3.2.1.14.4.2 of Attachment (2) BRU-69/A Performance
System Specification PMA201-07005 dated 15 May 2008.

Comment: JMMI and MMSI (AS 5725) weapon connections are not physically compatible.

Response: The Government concurs. MMSI will be supported by the MPBR. The specification
will be updated prior to Formal RFP release.
38. Solicitation Reference: Paragraph 3.2.5.15 of Attachment (2) BRU-69/A Performance System
Specification PMA201-07005 dated 15 May 2008.

Comment: Why is the requirement here since there is no classified processing required in either the
draft BRU-69/A ICD or the UAI-PSICD?

Response: The Government Concurs. The specification will be updated prior to Formal RPP
release.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:78
posted:8/10/2011
language:English
pages:14
Description: Separation Agreement and Non Solicitation document sample