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.