Industry Day Questions and Answers - USCG Navigation Center

• The current schedule for proposal development is aggressive and will require draft proposal preparation ahead of the formal RFP. We would prefer to receive preliminary documents (i.e., DSS, SOO, Sections L & M) even if they will h change substantially prior to final release. Can these documents be released in draft as they become available?
• Has the funding level for FY 02 been established and if so, can this be shared prior to the draft RFP release?
• Will there be a GMSP annex to the GPS III proposal? Are there likely to be any additional annexes? If yes, can you advise as to the contents and size (i.e., volumes, number of pages, etc.)?
• What are the Government’s plans for the SDRR in support of interface control working groups?
• Have you established the sub-factors associated with the mission capability volume? If so, can you advise as to their content?
• When will the list of the SETA/Support contractors be available and what are the OCI implications/restrictions?
• Can you provide clarification on how the GPS Partnership IPT will operate in determining “Lead Contractor” scope? Will there be a single IPT or one per contractor? Will this be established pre-contract award?
• To what extent is strategic planning and transition a part of an overall transformation for GPS?
• In what role will strategic transformation serve as a cornerstone to managing the risks of the GPS III SDRR contract?
• How do you view cost analysis (e.g., LCC, investment analysis, performance trades, R-TOC) in the strategic planning process?
• How do you view CONOPS in the realm of strategic planning? What priority do you place on validating the CONOPS through M&S?
• How do you see the strategic planning function supporting a simulation-based acquisition approach?
• Do you see the trade space of cost, technology, performance, schedule, transition, and risk as an integrated trade space and needed for overall mission integration?
• How do you see the end-to-end integration and performance responsibilities incorporating the ground segment?
• To what extent will the Air Force consider investments suggested by the SDRR contractor that might be beyond the initial scope of the SDRR, but yield benefit to the Air Force and the user community? Also, how will the SDRR contractor inputs affect the POM and PR inputs?
• The SDRR Phase contracts will be CPFF (Completion), will the JPO specifiy the required deliverable(s) or will the contractors propose the completion criteria?
• Will the EMD downselect criteria be provided in the SDRR RFP, if so, what will its nature be?
• How would the JPO evaluate any proposed commercial business opportunities and multi-mission capabilities?
• If there are only two bidders for the SDRR Phase, will this impact the acquisition plan?
• What is the GPS III partnership IPT, what is its charter and what role will industry play?
• Is the release of the Final RFP contingent on a successful UE DAE in September?
• How will the JPO enforce non-exclusivity of subcontractors?
• Could we get a list of JPO Contracts and $/Schedule Programs that would be incorporated into the PSI structure?
• What is the rationale for shortening SD/RR Phase to 18 months?
• What would be the deliverables for the SRR?
• What SDD content will be required in the SD/RR proposal?
• How is early delivery of the spot beam capability to be proposed? and how does this fit with a replenishment strategy?
• GMSP Impact - Part of Eval?
• What will be the impact of Galileo on the evaluation?
• How are we to engage the Lab for potential technology development and Program Investments? Can you give us examples? Is NRL clock work one? Is there any lab work being done on the M-code, interference, etc?
• What elements of a Technlogy Roadmap are you going to evaluate and cost?
• No mention of GSPARD - What will be included in the requirements?
• Col Loverro has indicated that the GPS satellite should remain pristine? Is that still the case? Other missions? How will you evaluate the business case for civilian payload and royalties?
• NDS Upgrades were mentioned; how much attention should we place upon it?
• How does AFSPC participate in CONOPS simulations and how do we engage them?
• Given that the control segment baseline continues to move out, can a baseline be frozen to standardize it for all participants?
• How does the evaluation matrix from Lazar's briefing pertain to the proposal -- and the ORD? Will there still be threshold and objective requiremetns in the DSS?
• Crypto Key Management: Knowing that 1) NSA has questioned the proposed key management for GPS Block IIF and 2) the number of keys will increase significantly for GPS III, what baseline for crypto key management should an offeror assume for scoping/pricing of its SDRR Phase proposal? Will there be explicit requirements in this regard in the government provided draft system specification (DSS) for the SDRR Phase?
• SEI-CMM: The Software Engineering Institute (SEI) has several engineering-related Capability Maturity Models (CMMs) including the SE-CMM, SW-CMM and the CMMI. Will the SDRR RFP contain any explicit requirements regarding these models? If so, which model and what sort of requirement (i.e. discussion of capability, rating, etc.) will apply?

• Draft documents will be released in increments when available. However, draft documents will only be released after achieving consensus within the Joint Program Office. This implies a reasonable maturity of thought prior to release of draft documents. Our current plans are to release Draft #1 of the SOO on 25 August and Draft #1 of the DSS on 7 Sep.
  
  Back to top

• A funding profile is not currently available. However, a projected funding profile will be included in Section G (Contract Administration Data) of the RFP.
  
  Back to top

• There will NOT be a GMSP annex, or any other annex, to the GPS III RFP. However, there is the possibility that the mission capability factor will require a classified appendix. The content and size of the classified portion has not been determined.
  
  Back to top

• Existing GPS ICDs will be provided to the GPS III contractors. During the SDRR phase, each contractor is responsible for defining the ICD requirements associated with their designs and is encouraged to provide recommended changes to the existing ICDs. The government will continue to conduct the ICWGs for these existing systems and will provide changes to the GPS III contractors for their assessment and feedback. In addition, any GPS III recommended ICD changes will be presented for consideration by the appropriate ICWG to determine the associated impact to the existing systems. Additionally, we are investigating how to have GPS III and User Equipment Modernization contractors work together.
  
  Back to top

• Specific sub-factors have not been finalized Industry recommended subfactor inputs are desired and will be evaluated for incorporation into the RFP. Our current schedule indicates release of the draft SOO and Sections L & M on 24 Aug/21 Sep respectively for industry review and comment
  
  Back to top

• JPO SETA/FFRDC contractors will most likely participate in the source selection either as advisors or evaluators and currently include: Aerospace, Mitre, SAIC, and ARINC. A definitive list of the SETA/FFRDC contractors involved in the source selection will be included in the RFP along with the nature of their involvement. It is the responsibility of the prime offerors to submit an OCI plan indicating all teaming relationships to the procuring contracting officer (PCO) for additional consideration of SETA/FFRDC participation. The required OCI content was outlined in a letter sent to all prospective primes and is posted on the website.
  
  Back to top

• At this time, we are not sure what we will call the Government team that supports the Prime/System Integrator (PSI) study task on the SD/RR contract(s). We anticipate establishing 1 team to work with both contractors. The complete membership will not be defined prior to awarding the SDRR contract(s).
  
  Back to top

• A detailed transition plan is an integral part of the overall GPS III program for the next phase.
  
  Back to top

• The JPO recognizes the importance of long range planning in successfully transitioning to a single GPS contractor. Contractors will be required to provide their vision and associated risks for such a transition.
  
  Back to top

• Cost/Benefit analyses are a cornerstone of the GPS III program. We have begun development of the analytical framework and that will continue to emphasize all of these throughout the program.
  
  Back to top

• M&S has been used to explore the GPS CONOPS during the SARD phase to support validation of architectural concepts. We expect the exploration of CONOPS & associated risks through M&S to be a priority. We will provide specific objectives in the SOO.
  
  Back to top

• This question does not relate to GPS III program at this stage
  
  Back to top

• Best value and optimal system performance are key aspects of determining an architecture will take into account, cost, performance and schedule which includes technology, transition plans, etc.
  
  Back to top

• This question does not relate to GPS III program at this stage
  
  Back to top

• One of the SDRR phase objectives is to fully appreciate all program risks. The JPO is actively seeking inputs from the offerors during the SDRR to refine the DSS to ensure a best value architecture is defined. Additionally, suggested risk reduction tasks for the Government to manage will be considered.
  
• SDRR contractor inputs will be considered, along with risk, in determining the JPO budget inputs to the PPBS.
  
  Back to top

• The System Definition and Risk Reduction (SDRR) phase contract will specify the required deliverables however contractor inputs to CDRLs can be submitted as part of the draft RFP review process for consideration for inclusion in the final RFP.
  
  Back to top

• The down-select strategy for the System Development & Demonstration phase has not been decided. Currently, the Government intends to provide general down-select criteria for the System Development & Demonstration phase in the System Definition and Risk Reduction RFP. These general criteria would then be defined in greater specificity during the course of contract performance of the System Definition and Risk Reduction effort and formalized in a Call for Improvements.
  
  Back to top

• Commercial business opportunities are not evaluated for utility in the same fashion as government funded architectural requirements/functions. Cost sharing proposals will be evaluated by the government in terms of their risk vs savings impacts to the military and civil missions.
  
  Back to top

• The Government's acquisition strategy may change depending upon its assessment of the competitive environment. However, even with two offerors, competition is preserved since the Government does not guarantee two contracts will be awarded.
  
  Back to top

• The purpose of a GPS Partnership IPT will be to establish the level of responsibility and transition to a prime GPS manager and integrator.
  
  Back to top

• According to the NAVSTAR GPS ADM of May 8, 2000, "Therefore, it is essential that the Air Force provide a comprehensive acquisition strategy that addresses User Equipment (UE) modernization and prevention for my approval prior to issuing the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the PDRR phase of GPS III.". It is the JPO's intent to establish a comprehensive strategy which will be the basis of the Final RFP release. It is not anticipated that the success of the UE DAE define the release. However, it is required prior to contract award.
  
  Back to top

• The Government intends to follow the policy guidance of FAR 9.603, FAR 9.604, and DoD 5000.2-R (dated 10 June 2001) paragraph 2.9.1.3.1 with respect to exclusive teaming arrangements. FAR 9.603 provides that "The Government will not normally require or encourage the dissolution of contractor arrangements." However, FAR 9.604 qualifies this statement by stating "Nothing in this subpart authorizes contractor team arrangements in violation of antitrust statutes or limits the Government's rights to...(d) Pursue its policies on competitive contracting, subcontracting, and component breakout after initial production or at any other time. [emphasis added]" DoD 5000.2R provides similar guidance. Paragraph 2.9.1.3.1 states "While the Department's preference is to allow the private sector to team and subcontract without DoD involvement, the Department shall intervene, if necessary, to assure adequate competition. The MDA shall approve any action to break up a team. [emphasis added]"
  
  Back to top

• The scope of PSI has not been decided. However, a list of active JPO contracts will be posted on the website.
  
  Back to top

• The length of the SDRR phase is not firm. Determining the length of the phase will be based on the total time estimated to complete the deliverables and level of detail required to satisfy Milestone B. However at this time, we expect to award in Mar 2002 with a performance period of about 24 months.
  
  Back to top

• The deliverables will be in the draft RFP.
  
  Back to top

• The required SDD content will be defined in the RFP. The goal of the SDRR is to limit risk in subsequent phases, develop solid plans, and to begin to understand all manufacturing, production, transition, deployment, fielding and support issues for entering into the System Design and Development (SDD) phase.
  
  Back to top

• The value of an early spot beam capability should be assessed relative to the implications associated with its implementation and utility at the time of delivery by the users. The contractor could address accommodating early delivery in terms of critical development milestones and risk management.
  
• Replenishment should be considered as part of the transition planning of the existing capabilities to a GPS III architecture.
  
  Back to top

• There should be no impact of GMSP on GPS III in this contract. GMSP concepts are being studied separately, as are the cost saving opportunities for the GPS III constellation. It is expected that the GPS III architecure will consider all possible external interfaces and have the flexability to evolve the architecture to include new capabilities as additional systems and technologies are identified, as required. GPS III contractors may be required to enter into Associate Contractor Agreements with GMSP contractors.
  
  Back to top

• Currently, there is no consolidated decision on the role that the United States will have for a non-US system within GPS III. It is desired that the GPS III architecure consider all possible external interfaces and have the flexability to evolve the architecture to include new capabilities as additional systems and technologies are identified, as required. The JPO is currently developing recommendations relative to international participation in GPS III. Any inputs would be welcome.
  
  Back to top

• The JPO is planning to host a host a Lab day in conjunction with the second GPS III Industry day and prior to the final RFP release where these and similar questions can be answered directly. Existing briefings and POCs from previous Lab Days can be provided upon request. If specific data is required and not provided by these POCs, the offerers should contact the JPO to verify if the information is available. Government Labs have clock studies as well as M-code studies on-going.
  
  Back to top

• Any evaluation criteria relating to a technology roadmap will be provided in the draft RFP. However, the technology roadmap is part of risk assessment and management.
  
  Back to top

• The security architeture is inherent in the system and will be addressed in the DSS and RFP.
  
  Back to top

• Commercial business opportunities are not evaluated for utility in the same fashion as government funded architectural requirements/functions Cost sharing proposals will be evaluated by the government in terms of their risk vs savings impacts to the military and civil missions. Colonel Loverro does not recall and particular comments regarding a pristine GPS.
  
  Back to top

• NDS is a necessary payload on GPS III. The details will be included in the RFP
  
  Back to top

• In the event that M&S is used to reduce CONOPS risk (see #11), AFSPC (as the designated GPS user representative agency) will have a full input and advisory role defined by AFSPC, JPO and the contractor teams.
  
  Back to top

• The JPO has "set" the developmental baseline at Version 6 for GPS III planning purposes.
  
  Back to top

• This evaluation tool is for PBRS and DSS development only and was shown to illustrate the disciplined process that will yield a DSS for the SDRR phase. The JPO is considering both a bracketed and a threshold only DSS. ORD changes will be suggested by the JPO based on the final outcome of the Draft System Spec. requirements analysis process and Government review processes.
  
  Back to top

• For the sake of the current study, the threshold and objective levels of the number of cryptonets has served as the baseline. These requirements will be updated for the purpose of the next phase.
  
  Back to top

• The RFP will not include a level of detail that will necessarily mandate a particular model. However, these and models like them will probably play an essential part in the risk reduction activity in the next phase of GPS III. It is safe to say that information on the capabilities an offeror has in this area would be solicited in the proposal.
  
  Back to top