Integrated Soldier System Project (ISSP) - Questions and Answers

Trade Agreement: Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) Tendering Procedures: Attachment: None Competitive Procurement Strategy: N/A - P&A/LOI Only Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement: No Nature of Requirements: Integrated Soldier System Project Questions and answers

This LOI was published to provide answers to Industry's questions following the ISSP Industry Day that took place on March 5, 2013. This amendment to the LOI is to provide answers to 3 additional questions.

Q37. UAPE Evaluation Criteria: We recommend the 9 mandatory requirements be changed to "rated" for the following reasons: 1) The subjective nature of the 9 suggested Mandatory requirements would be difficult to substantiate as "acceptable" because "acceptable" is not an absolutely measurable criteria for a mandatory requirement. 2) The process of only accepting Bidders that score within 20% of the top UAPE score will provide the elimination process for systems that are not acceptable to the Users. If the above recommendation is not accepted, then we recommend: a) the percentage difference between the highest-scoring UAPE bidder and the next contenders be increased from the current 20% to 30%. This would partially address the subjective nature of the UAPE scoring; or b) change the UAPE testing be to a Yes/No capability to perform the task, as "acceptable to the Soldier" is not an auditable criteria;

Answer: the 9 mandatory criteria identified by the requirements authority represent the core aspects of the ISS capability and there is no intention to adjust the UAPE requirements further including the 20% used in the basis of selection.

Q38. The "Option 2 -Evaluation Process" should be utilized in the UAPE testing evaluation in the same fashion as it is used for the written proposal. Bidders should be provided feedback at the end of each UAPE evaluation cycle (at the end of test stand completion), and be given opportunity to submit additional or different information to address any instances where Users have not scored a Mandatory requirement at an acceptable level. The weekend between UAPE evaluation cycles could be used to perform any analysis or re-test that is required.

Answer: Within the UAPE delivery framework, Bidders will have the opportunity to lead a Training Test Stand (stage 1) as well as providing mentoring through a Bidder Assisted Test Stand (stage 2) which will allow significant interaction with the evaluation soldiers. These opportunities account for three of the five days available in each UAPE block. Bidders will be able to adjust their training and mentoring based on the evaluation soldiers effectiveness in executing the various test stands and confirmatory exercises during stage 1 and 2. The results of the final scoring questionnaires completed by the evaluation soldiers at the end of each UAPE block will not be shared with the Bidders while UAPE is taking place.

Q39. Process of Deviation It is understood and accepted that the ISS equipment submitted for PBid is then evaluated during UAPE and that one set is retained as the Reference Model. It is our understanding however that scope exists for the ISS ensemble to differ at the end of the Qualification Phase from the system submitted and evaluated at PBid and UAPE. Please confirm if the previous assumption is correct, i.e. that a change of configuration or a design change between the PBid configuration and final Qualification Phase configuration is acceptable. This naturally assumes that the qualified system does not invalidate the UAPE and technical evaluation.

Answer: Technology evolves quickly and it may be beneficial to Canada and to the Contractor to evolve the ISS between the time of bid submission and the end of the System Qualification Phase of the Acquisition Contract. Paragraph 3.2.1.0-2 of Volume 2, Annex CA explains that modifications will be allowed to the ISS during the system qualification phase of the acquisition contract. The ISS P(Bid) state is the configuration of the system presented to Canada at bid time and is therefore the system being evaluated in the P(Bid) Evaluation, UAPE and the technical evaluation done on paper. It is also the configuration used at the System Requirements Allocation Review (SRAR) meeting at the start of the system qualification phase. All changes made to the ISS P(Bid) configuration to bring it to the ISS P(Prod) state will have to be approved by Canada and handled through the Engineering Change Proposals (ECP) process defined in Volume 2, Annex CA.

Delivery Date: Above-mentioned

The Crown retains the right to negotiate with suppliers on any procurement.

Documents may be submitted in either official language of Canada.