00 - Industry Questions and Responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 51 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 2nd Draft Request for Proposals for Air Base Air Defense -USAFE Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- ABADDRFP2
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 18
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
| Relevant Document / Section / Page | Question / Concern | Government Response |
| Attachment 1 |
Section 1.0 Attachment 6 Section 1.1 Attachment 1 states that the "purpose of this acquisition is to develop, create, integrate, and maintain a new Air Base Air Defense (ABAD) system for USAFE-AFAFRICA" and the " end goal for this acquisition is to emerge with a functional Air Base Air Defense system capable of augmenting the United States’ defensive posture."
Attachment 6 PWS states that the contract is for "supporting operations, maintenance, and integration of the United States Air Forces in Europe – Air Forces Africa (USAFE-AFAFRICA) Air Base Air Defense (ABAD) initiatives" and that a variety of sources provide the "the technical expertise necessary to complete all of the current ABAD requirements."
Will the Government please clarify the ABAD contractor's role, amongst the other parties involved in PWS Section 1.1.1, in regard to 1) development, 2) creation, 3) integration, 4) operations, and 5) maintenance, respective to the RADSIL, ABAD system, and ABAD initiatives?
| Changes made to paragraph 1.1.1. The old line was "Government with the technical expertise necessary to complete all of the current ABAD requirements." The new line is "provide the Government with technical expertise in support of ABAD requirements." This identifies that these agencies are here to support ABAD but will not be the primary on any of the efforts identified within the question. Those efforts will primarily belong to the ABAD contractor. |
| Attachment 1 |
Section 2.1 Proposal Compliance Attachment 2 Section 1.3 Minimum Guaranteed Task Order
| Section L 2.1 references a "Sample ABAD Task Order (TO)" and Section M 1.3 references a "Operations and Maintenance (O&M) task order (Ramstein RADSIL Task Order 0001) will be awarded to the IDIQ awardee." Will the Government please clarify that Task 0001 is an awardable task? | The name of the initial Task Order has been standardized in all documents and will be referred to as the 'RADSIL Task Order.' This initial task order is intended to be awarded with the IDIQ. |
| Attachment 1 |
Sections 2.9.2.3, 3.5 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits, and 6.0 Volume III - Cost/Price
| Please confirm multiple files may be submitted for sections listed in Table 1. For example, Section 3.3 includes detailed requirements in regard to submission of individual Cost/Price files which appears to conflict with the guidance in Section 2.9.2.3 which requires Offerors to "use separate electronic files for each proposal section listed in Table 1." | The Government's intent is for every section of a proposal within a volume (as identified in Section L , 3.5, Table 1) to be its own file at a minimum. Any further breakdowns needed to adhere to additonal instructions are permitted. The team does not see a conflict between the two instructions referenced in the question. |
| Attachment 1 |
Sections 2.9.2.3, 3.5 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits, and 7.0 Volume IV Contract Documentation
| Table 1 does not include Volume IV, therefore it's not clear how to submit the required elements in accordance with the section submission requirement of Section 2.9.2.3. Will the Government please clarify how to submit Volume IV? | Volume IV has been added to Table 1. |
| Attachment 1 |
Sections 2.9.2.3 and 3.2 Oral Presentations
| Given requirements in Sections 2.9.2.3 and 3.2, please confirm Offerors can submit a MS Office PowerPoint 2016 compatible file for the oral presentation. | PowerPoint 2016 has been added to the list of acceptable file formats, and clarified Section 3.2 file formatting. |
| Attachment 1 |
Section 2.9.2.4 Proposal Markings
1) Please confirm the Government reference to Volume IV is correct.
2) Please confirm company proprietary content, such as OCI Plan and rate tables, can be marked as proprietary?
| 1. The reference is correct. Section IV has been added to Table 1. 2. Noting that the Government plans to have an A&AS contractor and an FFRDC help evaluate proposals, the offeror can mark items as proprietary as needed. OCI Mitigation Plans and other items marked as proprietary will still be incorporated into the contract as necessary, but such information would be redacted from things such as FOIA requests as needed. The FFP Rate tables have been removed from the solicitation. |
| Attachment 1 |
Section 3.2 Oral Presentations
| Will the Government please consider increasing the slide limit for the presentation? Additional slides will allow Offerors to better document their solution, providing the Government sufficient content for post-presentation review and evaluation. Many RFPs do not set a slide limit. As an example, the following requirement is from Section L.7.2 of the USAFE-AFAFRICA TOR 47QFCA19R0047: "There is no limit to the number of slides that can be presented during the Oral Technical Proposal Presentation, but only those slides actually discussed and presented during the oral presentation will be considered for evaluation." | The Government has increased the limit to 25 slides. The limitation is intended to focus the briefing and prevent the evaluation team from being subjected to a firehose that would inhibit their ability to thoroughly consider the presentation. |
| Attachment 1 |
Section 3.2 Oral Presentations
| Will the Government please consider increasing the time limit for the presentation? In our estimate, a complete presentation of a solution for the scenario will take approximately 2.5 hours. Given the complexity of the scenario and the Government's intent to evaluate risk, additional time will allow the Offeror to present a more complete response in regard to the proposed solution, as well as respective risks and mitigations. | The Government has increased the briefing time to 90 minutes to allow additional time to cover the scenario given its complexity. |
| Attachment 1 |
Section 3.2 Oral Presentations
| Please confirm that all information presented orally will be considered. If all information presented orally is considered, Offerors may brief classified information while keeping presentation files unclassified. This decreases the burden of creating, storing, and evaluating classified files for both Government and industry. | An additional paragraph has been added to Section L 3.2.1 to allow and provide rules for the possibility of an unclassified presentation material with classified speech alongside it. |
| Attachment 1 |
Section 3.2 Oral Presentations
| Given the COVID-19 situation and people working in different locations, will the Government please provide 14 days advance notice of their presentation timeslot to allow presenters to make arrangements to gather in one location? | The Government intends to alert the contractor that they are proceeding in the evaluation as soon as possible. While there is not exact language to that effect in the solicitation documents at the moment, the team is aware of the COVID situation and will make every effort to accomodate reasonable requests to ensure a fair competition. |
| Attachment 1 |
Section 3.2 Oral Presentations
| Please confirm where Offerors should provide this information as part of the proposal (e.g., a cover letter in Volume I). | The following language has been added, "All presentation materials shall be included as a separate file contained in, and considered part of, proposal Volume II as indicated in Table 1." |
| Attachment 1 |
Section 3.2.2 Oral Presentation Format
| Would the Government please provide more detail about the intended VTC format and capabilities for the oral presentation? For example, will presentation reviewers and/or evaluators be on video? Will the presenters be able to see them? What technology will be used? | Both VTC and S-VTC will allow for the display of slides as well as a visual of the presenters. The Government also intends to use some method to capture the content of each briefing i.e. video/audio recording. | |
| Attachment 1 | ||
| Section 4.3.1 Financial/Other Resources | Section 4.3.1 requires "a written statement explaining the Offeror’s ability to obtain required resources to perform the contract requirements" and "that evidence may include official letter(s) from (a) financial institution(s) demonstrating that the Offeror has the financial resources required to cover all financial commitment." Will the Government please provide a dollar value for the required resources to ensure Offerors can meet the requirement? | Please refer to the requirements in FAR 9.104. |
| Attachment 1 |
Section 5.2.1 Subfactor One (Scenario)
| Instructions for the Scenario require the offeror to provide a solution to defend an unspecified Air Base in Germany against an attack. Offerors solutions will vary significantly based on their assumptions about the geographic location, base size, and systems and equipment assumed to the already resident on the base. Providing all offerors a single starting point will simplify evaluation and ensure a fair assessment of solutions. We understand that releasing the necessary details about an actual base raises security issues. Can the Government provide a geographic location, base size, and a list of systems and equipment available for a fictional base to bound the scenario and facilitate evaluation? | The Government has provided a list of assumptions within Section L, 5.2.1.2, to help provide the context of available resources for the system. If the contractor needs to make assumptions above and beyond what has been provided, the contractor should provide those within the proposal so as to be considered during the evalutions of the contractor's solution. |
| Attachment 1 |
Section 5.2.3 Subfactor Three (O&M Task Order)
| Please confirm the requirement for accomplishment of “this effort" and "the ABAD requirement" is a cross-reference to Attachment 7 PWS Task Order. | This is correct. |
| Attachment 1 |
Section 5.2.3 Subfactor Three (O&M Task Order)
| Please clarify what is meant by "theater wide ABAD system concept"? | Theater wide ABAD system is the entire ABAD system to support the U-A requirement in both the Europe and Africa AOR. Please reference section 1.3 of Attachment 6 (PWS IDIQ). |
| Attachment 1 |
Section 5.2.3 Subfactor Three (O&M Task Order)
| Please define the "ABAD system" which is referenced in Sections 1.0 and 5.2.3. | Please reference section 1.3 of the IDIQ PWS (Attachment 6) for details. |
| Attachment 1 |
Section 5.2.3 Subfactor Three (O&M Task Order)
| Please provide additional clarification in the PWS documents and RFP so that Offerors may better understand the requirements. For example, precise terminology to distinguish between Ramstein ABAD systems and component systems, versus the theater wide ABAD system concept. | Please reference section 1.3 of the IDIQ PWS (Attachment 6) for details on the 'ABAD system.' | ||
| Attachment 6 | |||
| Section 1.3.1 | Section 1.3.1 of the Draft IDIQ PWS describes the first phase of the contract. Contractor work outlined in this section includes maintenance and documentation of the RADSIL, specifically maintenance of the command and control (C2) information systems, network communication subsystems, and commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) sensor systems." Our understanding from Industry Day is that the systems for test in the RADSIL will be selected, procured, and integrated during Phase 1. Please confirm that the contractor will participate in the selection, procurement, and integration of RADSIL systems? | Section 1.3.1 of the IDIQ PWS, paragraph 4, states, "The Contractor shall participate in the ongoing development activities at the RADSIL to ensure the design of an effective and sustainable ABAD capability." The contractor will be participate in the selection, procurement, and integration of the RADSIL system. Though the Government will, in the end, make the final decision as to what is selected, procured, and integrated. | |
| Joint Counter sUAS Memo | Recently the Joint Counter sUAS office released a memo that they have down-selected and recommended that future investments be made currently in 8 primary systems, down from 30+. Please describe USAFE’s perspective on the recommended systems and will they try and follow this direction? | U-A will partner with the selected contractor to procure/implement the best C-sUAS system here. If that happens to be one of the 8 primary systems that may be acceptable, but this is not required. | |
| Subfactor #1 Scenario | The Subfactor 1 Scenario infers that the local base commander will be responsible for coordinating and executing defense against cruise missiles. CM Defense is normally coordinated and executed by the Area/Regional Air Defense Commander. Please confirm this role for the local base commander and their relationship to the AADC/RADC? | Scenario 1 does not infer the local Base/CC will be responsible for executing the defense against cruise missiles. The Regional Air Defense Commander role is still in place at U-A, and will be executing normal functions unless the future architecture influences that role. | |
| Subfactor #1 Scenario | In the Subfactor 1 Scenario, the Government is requesting the total procurement cost. Will the Government provide a list of air defense GFE systems that would be available for use in this scenario and fall outside of the pricing constraints? | The following language has been added to the 'assumptions' in the Scenario: "There is no Government Furnished Equipment available for this system." | |
| Attachment 1 Draft Section L ; 6.2 Firm Fixed Price Labor (Attachments L – X) pg 14 of 19 | Document references attachments L – X however GovWin announcement did not have referenced documents available to download and review. Does the Government intend to release draft Attachments L – X? | This referred to 'Attachment 3 - Draft Fixed Price Labor Rates,' which has been removed from this solicitation. | |
| Attachment 1 Draft Section L; FFP Labor Rates Attachment 3 | Requested rates for OCONUS locations, there is no mention of associated OCONUS uplifts. Is the Government’s intent to have these items treated as ODCs within the pre-determined NTE? | Yes. | |
| Task Order PWS Paragraph 3.9.3 | After the first sentence of paragraph 3.9.3, will the Government consider adding the following sentence: “The COR shall first determine if any vacancy has resulted in non-performed services and accordingly inform the contractor if a lapse rate calculation is necessary”? | The Government has added the following language to the lapse rate section of the IDIQ PWS, "The COR shall determine if any vacancy has resulted in non-performed services and accordingly inform the contractor that a lapse rate calculation is necessary." Also of note is that lapse rate language has been removed from the first task order, though it remains on the IDIQ for potential use on future task orders. | |
| Section L and Section M | Will the SOFA agreement included in the Bidder’s Library be incorporated into the resulting ABAD contract? | No. | |
| Task Order 1 PWS, Lapse Rate, paragraph 3.9.3 | Will the Government please confirm that the Lapse Rate calculation be applied after the 60 day period the contractor is required to provide a replacement referred to in paragraph IDIQ PWS 3.9.2? | Lapse rate language has been removed from the RADSIL task order PWS. However, it is being retained at the IDIQ level for potential use on future task orders. | |
| PWS, Lapse Rate, paragraph 3.9.3 | Can the Government please clarify how the lapse rate is applicable to a CPFF Task Order? | Lapse rate language has been removed from the RADSIL task order PWS. However, it is being retained at the IDIQ level for potential use on future task orders. | |
| Attachment 00 Section I | Attachment 00 252.237-7023 Continuation of Essential Contractor Services. 2010-10 (b) contains a reference to services listed in an attachment, a fill-in which is not yet completed. Can the Government please provide some guidance, such as page count, where the plan should be submitted? | This contract will contain mission essential contractor services. However, the first task order will not have any personnel deemed mission essential. Therefore this clause will only have fill-in language for use on future task orders when it is applicable, and there will be no attachment until an applicable task order is issued. | |
| Question: What will be the relationship be between Contractor and MIT/LL? How will the Government balance the awardee's responsibilities for price, schedule and risk with the presence and role of MIT/LL? Contractor should be granted authority within the bounds of their contract performance. | MIT/LL is a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) and will have a direct working relationship within the contractor. All work/support from MIT/LL will be considered GFE/GFP/GFI and will be treated accordingly. | ||
| 3.2 | "All representatives shall be employees of the offeror, and no external consultants will be allowed to represent an offeror in oral solicitations." | ||
| Question: Because a teammate would be considered "an offeror", is it correct to assume this does not include teammates/subcontractors? | That is correct. All subcontractors attached to the proposal are considered "an offeror." | ||
| 3.5 | Technical subfactor One (Scenarios) is limited to 20 PowerPoint slides. | ||
| Question: Do title page and table of contents fall within the 20 slide limit? Can suplimentary information be provided in a Backup section that will not be presented? | Section L, 3.5.1 Page Limitations, specifies what does not count against page and slide limitations. Suplimentary information provided in a backup section that is not presented will not be evaluated. | ||
| 5.2.1.2 Attack 1 | "No more than 3 UAS in the same 100m section". | ||
| Question: Does this mean that multiple adjacent 100m zones can have 3 UAS in them? | The current wording should be interpreted along the lines of, 'You can have anywhere between 1-3 UAS in a section at the same time, but you will only have to deal with one section at a time because there won't be 2 sections penetrated at once.' | ||
| 5.2.1.2 Attack 2 | "Cruise missiles have the potential to arrive within 30sec of each other" is not clear. | ||
| Question: Does this mean all 5 CM could arrive within 30sec or the minimum time between any two CM is 30sec? | The scenario language has been updated to state, "There will be a minimum of 30 seconds between each cruise missile arrival." | ||
| 5.2.1.2 Attack 2 | "Cruise missiles will strike various locations on the base". | ||
| Question: Does not indicate how close together the CM could be. Will each counter CM unit have to be able to engage all five CM? | The offeror will need to define the system and how it will engage the cruise missiles. The system provided must be able to counter all 5 cruise missiles. | ||
| 5.2.1.2 | Regarding the statement "No more than 3 UAS will penetrate the same section of the base ", | ||
| Question: is the defense design to support up to 3 UASs attacking at the same time in the same section? Is the defense design to support the multiple sections being attacked at the same time? | The 3 UAS at the same section at the same time is the stressing factor for the system. Multiple sections will not be penetrated concurrently. The scenario has been updated to clarify. | ||
| 5.2.1.2 | Regarding the statement "These cruise missiles all have the potential to arrive within 30 seconds of each other", | ||
| Question: how many simultaneous cruise missile attacks is the base defense to support? | No simultaneous cruise missile attacks will occur. The scenario has been update to reference that there will be a minimum gap of 30 sections between cruise missile attacks using the following language, "There will be a minimum of 30 seconds between each cruise missile arrival." | ||
| 1.0.1 | Regarding the statement "Tradeoffs may be made between the technical approach to the scenario and cost/price, with the technical approach considered significantly more important than cost/price." | ||
| Question: Does this mean that the Subfactor 1: Scenario Technical Approach cost thresholds can be exceeded without being considered Unacceptable (according to section 3.1.4 Unacceptable) | Section M, 2.2.1, states, "Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. For a subfactor to be rated as acceptable, all aspects for that subfactor must be evaluated as acceptable. If any aspect is evaluated as unacceptable, then the entire subfactor will be evaluated as unacceptable." Furthermore, Section M, 3.1.4, states, "For a proposal to be considered Unacceptable, the proposal does not meet one or more of the threshold requirements or has received a Risk rating of ‘Unacceptable Risk’ in accordance with Table 2M." Therefore if the price aspect/threshold of Technical Subfactor 1 is considered unacceptable, the offeror will be unable to win the award. | ||
| 2.1 Evaluation Factors | The Total Evaluated Price (rate card + TO 0001) and the Scenarion Response are independent of one another, making a best value-tradeoff between these two elements impossible or arbitrary, and seemingly to the advantage of a lowest bidder. | ||
| Question: Will the Government consider a modification of the evaluation to criteria that considers tradeoffs (cost vs. price) of related and/or interdependent factors. | The cost/price evaluation methodology has been updated in part due to industry feedback. | ||
| 3.1 | Requires 100% Pkill for UAS and CM - achieving 100% Pkill within the realities of budget constraints is not attainable. | ||
| Question: Will USAFE consider a more realistic, but precise, requirement such as 90% threshold with 95% objective? Such measures are much more common, attainable and realistic than achieving and requiring a Pkill of 100%. | The Government has updated Section M to included pKill and pDetect requirements. | ||
| 3.1 | 100km / 50km ranges place unncessary constraints on system design | ||
| Question: Will the Government consider removing the ranges, and instead measure system performance based upon a more realistic Pkill. | While the Government has added the pKill & pDetect requirements, the Government will keep the range as that gives another measurement on the ability of the proposed system. | ||
| 3.3 | "A system engineering plan shall show...how they (the contractor) will develop the theater wide ABAD system." Task Order 0001 is vague in the responsibilities of the design aspect, aside from the mention that the "contractor shall participate in the ongoing devlopment activities... to ensure the design of an effective... capability". | ||
| Question: Please clarify what development steps for the theater wide ABAD system the contractor will be responsible for from the responsibilities provided by other contractors (e.g., A&AS, the MITRE Corporation, and MIT/LL) towards the development of the ABAD system? | The contractor will be the overall developer of the system. The contractor will take recommendations from the other support contractors and get final word from the Government, but the contractor will be the lead on development. | ||
| 3.3 Subfactor 3, para 2 | Question: Is "develop the theater wide ABAD system" and "onramp emerging technologies" part of the O&M task? | ||
| Question: How many resources and SMEs are working this today, is it correct to assume that there is a full team performing this work at the RADSIL today, thus the exclusion of a full-team from the workload estimate? | Developing the theater wide ABAD system is part of the RADSIL task order. Onramping new technology will be a split between the RADSIL task order and future task orders. |
The contractor should propose the necessary manpower to develop the theater-wide ABAD system. The Government cannot guarantee that other resources will be made available for the contractor.
| 4.0 Price Factor | a. The FFP labor rates provided by the offeror in Section L Attachment 3 will have hour multipliers applied to each labor rate, for each year, in each location. The hour multipliers shall be the exact same values for all offerors. | |
| Question: Will the Government disclose how many hours will be applied? | FFP labor rates have been removed from the solicitation documents. | |
| 4.0 | ||
| Para f&i | "NOTE: In the event that the Government’s performed cost realism analysis determines the offeror’s proposal to have a probable cost different than the proposed cost, the probable cost of performance will be used to derive the TPP value applied to the TEP for evaluation purposes." |
- "The Cost/Price team may confer with the Technical Evaluation Team for assistance in determining cost realism. Ramstein RADSIL Task Order 0001 cost/price proposals deemed by the Government to be unrealistic may not be eligible for award."
| Question: Will the Government please clarify WHICH is it, use probable cost or not eligible? | The Government intends to rely on probable cost where feasible. However, if the proposed cost is too unrealistic, the Government may (as opposed to 'shall') consider that proposal to be inelligible for award. | |
| Material Acquistion | "Materials... required for performance will be procured under the cost reimburable CLIN. |
The Draft RFP shows CLINs that allow for the procurement of materials using both CPFF and FFP CLINs, in addition to the CR CLIN.
| Question: Will the Government clarify that materials will be acquired utilizing CPFF and Fixed Price CLINs, and not as Cost Reimbursable? | Materials for the RADSIL task order are planned to be CR, as materials are considered incidental and in no way a major part of the first task order. Future task orders involving materials may be CR, CPFF, or FFP based on the risk involved and on what is fair to both the Government and contractor. The Government has included these CLIN options for materials in the hopes of alleviating Industry concerns about the profitability of the effort, and allow profitability even if the ABAD solution ends up needing less manpower and more material (i.e. an AI solution). | |
| Instructions | "Burdened exclusing profit" |
FFP Labor rates should include fee, and therefore be fixed going forward.
| Question: Will the Government revise this language to allow for fee to be included within the FFP rates proposed? | FFP labor rates have been removed from the solicitation documents. | ||
| Hours | Question: How/what hours will be applied per labor category? | FFP labor rates have been removed from the solicitation documents. | |
| 11h | Question: why is COMSEC Account required when all classified work will be performed at Ramstein AFB? | Not all classified work will be done at Ramstein Air Base. | |
| 10e(1), PWS-pg 6, 3.1.1 | Comment: There was mention of TS/SCI clearances needed. If SCI is required, then Block 10e(1) will need to be checked | The Government has reviewed the DD254 and updated it as needed. | |
| IDIQ PWS 2.5.1.1.2.4, pg 7 |
TO 001 PWS 3.1.1, pg 6 Large corporations that support global operations will have dedicated global deployment support office that have legal and SOFA/DOCPER experts whose sole focus is navigating those processes. Will the government accept program level capability in lieu of PM SOFA/DOCPER experience? The Government has reduced the requirements on the Program Management position from three years of SOFA experience working-knowledge to one year, and eliminated the DOCPER regulations requirement.
| Attachment 3 Draft Fixed Price Labor Rate Sheet | The Government’s Attachment 3 lists the LCATs to be proposed for the FFP IDIQ by country. Some of the LCATs are listed within the same labor family (ie. Electronic Tech and Field Service Technicians) and by Level I – III. In Attachment 14 Draft IDIQ Labor Category List there are additional labor category families that have Level I – III based on years of experience. Based on the Offeror’s solutioning there may be a need to delineate a labor category specific to the Level I, II or III. For example, as part of an Offeror’s solutioning there’s a need for Software Engineer (Technical Expert) Levels II and III. Are the Offeror’s able to add this delineation within the Fixed Price Labor Rate card? | FFP labor rates have been removed from the solicitation documents. |
| 2.5.1.1.2.4 of the IDIQ PWS |
3.1.1 of TO 001 PWS Please clarify if the PM requires working knowledge of SOFA experience, as stated in paragraph 2.5.1.1.2.4 of the IDIQ PWS, or at least three years SOFA experience as listed in paragraph 3.1.1 of TO 001 PWS. The Government has reduced the requirements on the Program Management position from three years of SOFA experience working-knowledge to one year. The PM will require this experience.
| IDIQ PWS 2.5.1.1.2.1 | The requirements state that the PM shall meet the following qualifications: “Authority to commit the prime contractor’s organization” but that requirement is not found elsewhere in the solicitation documents. Please confirm this requirement for the PM. | This language has been removed. However, the program manager must be able to speak on behalf of the company. |
| Section L, 6.3 Firm Fixed Price Labor Rates, Pricing Template | In order to develop appropriate price for each Country Fixed Price rate, will the government please provide specific city or base location(s) (for the referenced section of the solicitation)? | FFP labor rates have been removed from the solicitation documents. |
| Bidder’s Library, Section L, 6.3 Firm Fixed Price Labor Rates | The government provided the NATO SOFA website for Germany only. Will the government please provide the SOFA agreements for each Country and Location? | As the Government is not awarding for work outside of Germany at this time, no other links are being provided. Relevant information will be provided on future task orders as applicable. |
| N/A | What impact (contract $ value, procurement schedule, etc.) is the recently announced reduction in Germany-based forces expected to have on this program? | While no impact is expected at this time, the offeror should propose based off the current infrastructure regardless. |
| Attachment 1 - Draft Section L ABAD; Page 12; Para 5.2.2.3 | Question: Would USAFE consider amending Section L, Para 5.2.2.3 requirement to allow for SOFA-like experience through non-DoD customer programs (e.g., Department of State)? |
| Recommended Para 5.2.2.3 Wording: The Offeror shall submit evidence of at least 2 years of overseas service contracting experience (instances where the Offeror performed as a key subcontractor or a prime) within the previous 5 years from date of issuance of solicitation, where the Offeror is or was required to maintain personnel in the EUCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR) for an extended duration and comply with DoD/NATO (SOFA) or equivalent agency (e.g., Department of State) work/residence permitting on a $5,000,000 or greater program. | The Government has adjusted the language in Section L, 5.2.2.3, to include 'equivalent agency' (i.e. Department of State). | ||
| Attachment 6 - Draft PWS IDIQ; Page 9; Para 2.8 (Also, Attachment 1 - Draft Section L ABAD; Page 11; Para 5.2.2) | Since contingency situations are a recurring problem and a critical part of doing business overseas, would USAFE consider amending Section L Para 5.2.2 to also include demonstrated experience supporting Government facility security operations projects in contingency and deployment situations in direct, rapid response to said contingency situation (e.g., terrorist or similar attack, natural disaster, etc.)? | While responsiveness to contingency situations is important, the Government does not wish to exclude competition to that extent. | |
| Attachment 1 - Draft Section L ABAD; Page 11; Para 5.2.2 | Would the Government consider adding a requirement for the offeror to demonstrate relevant facility security systems integration and installation experience throughout the African continent? Working in Africa presents challenges that are unique to Africa and considerably different than executing the same tasks in Europe. | While the Government will not add this requirement out of a desire to increase competition, the team appreciate this feedback and does acknowledge the complexity of working in Africa. | |
| Section L, 6.2 | |||
| "(2) (2) Burdened FFP labor rates are intended to cover hours paid at the straight time rate only. Thus, overtime premiums and factors shall not be considered in the buildup of the proposed hourly labor rates. |
Question: Does this mean offerors are not to include overseas Cost of Living Allowances as part of the build-up?
- Comment: there can sometimes be wide variations in how offerors apply these adjustments, and the exclsuion of these factors a from the evaluated price will contribute toward workforce stability if this factor is not included as a bidding variable. Instead, the Government could provide a per/person allowance to account for this factor, or set aside a separate pool to fund such adjustments."
| FFP labor rates have been removed from the solicitation documents. | |
| N/A | Can you provide a glossary of terms? What is included in the term “System”? |
The draft RFP documents do not include definitions of some of the terms used. For example, the terms "System", "C2", "ABAD" are not clearly defined.
We are especially concerned about the meaning of the term “System.” Does it refer to an end-to-end with all components defeat a defined threat, set of components that work together, or an individual such as a C2 capability, sensor or radar? It can – and may – have different meanings in different places.
| A glossary would avoid significant confusions. | A glossary of terms will be provided with the final RFP. | ||
| Section L | What will contractor proposals be judged on for each Phase? Will they solely or primarily be judged on the manning or maintenance or will the contractor be judged based on the end-to-end capability, including effectors and sensors? | Section M details the evaluation criteria for proposals. | |
| Section L | How much of the hardware components – including effectors, sensors, and C2 – must be included in the initial RFP response for Phase 1 and how will the contractor be judged for including in each of the Phases? | The scope outlined in the RADSIL Task Order (TO) does not call for the contractor to propose hardware. The goal of that TO is for the contractor to work with the Government to define the ABAD system and to also maintain the current system that resides at U-A. That is the primary scope of phase 1. Please reference section 1.3.1 of the IDIQ PWS (Attachment 6) for details on phase 1. | |
| Section L | When is the expected IOC for each of the Phases? | IOC is TBD based on the phase rollout plan that the Contractor and Government build together. | |
| Section L | Re. Phase 1- Please clarify current architecture of the current RADSIL (Security provisions, communications solutions, etc.). | Please reference the GFP attachment for the current equipment involved with the RADSIL. The current RADSIL is a mixture of GFE hardware/software working to understand and survey the threat picture around Ramstein, with some c-sUAS capability included. | |
| Section L | For the Scenarios described in section 5.2.1: |
a. Please clarify what, if any, safety constraints - such as population, active airport, fratricide, airspace management restrictions, interception over urban areas and assets etc. – will be taken into account in the reference scenario?
b. What are the permitted/desired interception ranges (max-min) for each of the threats?
| c. What are the assumptions regarding the flight pattern of the cruise missiles in "Attack 2"? Trajectory shapes, flight altitude AGL, air speed, maneuvering/non- maneuvering | While the scenario will not place safety constraints on the contractor provided solution to engage targets, the Government may incorporate such factors into its risk assessment as noted in Section M, 3.1. | ||
| Section M | Section 3.1 - bullet 5- Please clarify what components are comprised in the target costs provided. Could you clarify, not to exceed the $20M (threshold) to procure? Is this a complete system (system-of-systems)? What if there is a system for Scenario 1 and a separate system for Scenario 2 but interoperable. How does this $20M relate to the not to exceed $953M IDIQ? | The system proposed must be an end to end system that fits within the dollar requirements in 3.1 of Section M (Attachment 2). The dollar requirement does not define what the final ABAD solution will be when the contract is awarded. Its purpose is to provide a common foundation for all contractors to propose to. Also, $953M is to cover mulitple sites over a 10 year period. | |
| Section M | Additional relevant threats: According to literature/open source information, the possible threats in the arena include PGM (Precision Guided Munitions, Precise TBM (Tactical ballistic Missile) and RAM (Rockets, artillery and mortars). Is the ability to address these additional threats either a requirement of advantage that a system will be credited for? | While there are more threats than UAS and cruise missiles that will be considered in the development of the future ABAD system, for the purposes of this solicitation only the two will be considered. | |
| Section M | Can you provide existing/procured sensors list, and characteristics? | Please refer to the GFP list the Government provided. | |
| Draft PWS IDIQ | Is the ability to defeat hypersonic threats a requirement? The definition, Section 1.2 - Mission Definition in Attachment 6, requires that the selected ABAD system defeat Hypersonic Threats. However, in Attachment 2, Section M, subsection 3, defeating hypersonic threats is not included as part of the evaluation criteria. Can you clarify? | The eventual ABAD system will need to meet all U-A requirements. However, for the purposes of the scenaio, the system's ability to meet UAS and cruise missile threats will be the only factors evaluated. Please keep in mind that the system used for the scenario is not necessarily the one that will be used as the system won't be designed until the RADSIL task order; the scenario is intended to gauge the offeror's understanding of the factors they are presented with. The intent of this scenario is not for the offeror to present their 'final ABAD solution' to the Government (since the offeror will develop that solution side-by-side with the Government), but to showcase their approach to the given scenario and demonstrate an understanding of the challenges involved in meeting the thresholds provided. | |
| Draft PWS IDIQ | Section 1.3.2 refers to the capability of Ramstein Air Base Air Defense system and Operations, yet the paragraph mentions only C2 and fusion of sensors - without effectors. Does it mean that effectors will not be incorporated in phase 2, if not, when would the effectors be incorporated? | The IDIQ PWS has been updated to include the incorperation of weapons during phase 2. | |
| DD254 | Will the prime contractor be allowed to purchase weapon systems, solutions, and sensors from a non-US subcontractor? Does the obligation set forth in Attachment 6 section 4.9.1.3, apply to subcontractors solely providing components/systems? | Attachment 6 is the IDIQ PWS, for reference. | |
| IDIQ CLIN 0016 | Will the Govt. provide plug numbers for the non-labor CLINs? | Not-To-Exceed amounts will be provided for cost-reimbursement CLINs. The offeror will be responsible for proposing their labor. Additional priced CLINS are not being used on the RADSIL Task Order and therefore have no such plug numbers. | |
| Attachment_1_-_Draft_Section_L_ABAD | Section L, 3.2 Oral Presentations states, "no external consultants will be allowed to represent an offeror in oral solicitations." |
| Will the Government please confirm that employees of subcontractors with significant roles are allowed to participate in the orals presentation? | The following language has been added to Section L, 3.2, "Subcontractors for the offeror will be counted as employees of the offeror and therefore be allowed to participate in the briefing as long as all other criteria for that member’s participation have been met. Furthermore, should an offeror use a subcontractor as a member of the presentation team, the offeror shall provide evidence of an agreement or partnership with the subcontractor alongside the proposal that would ensure that member’s participation on the RADSIL Task Order." | |
| Attachment_1_-_Draft_Section_L_ABAD | Section L, 2.9.2.3 Submission Format states, "The proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2016, MS Office Excel 2016 or Adobe PDF." |
| Will the Government allow offers to submit using MS Office products 2016 or higher? | No. | ||
| 00_-_Draft_Solicitation_FA564120R0007.pdf | Is the Government planning to add any clauses related to Intellectual Property (IP) and Data Rights? | Yes. The Government will be adding applicable clauses as required by the FAR, DFARS, and AFFARS. | |
| 00_-_Draft_Solicitation_FA564120R0007.pdf | 252.237-7023 Continuation of Essential Contractor Services. 2010-10. |
| Will the Government please confirm if offerors are required to submit the Continuation of Essential Contractor Services plan with our proposal submission? | The contractor will not be required to make this submission at IDIQ/RADSIL Task Order award. However, future task orders will have personnel designated as mission essential which will have this requirement. | |
| Attachment_1_-_Draft_Section_L_ABAD, 5.2.2 Subfactor Two (Past Experience) | Section L, 5.2.2 Subfactor Two (Past Experience) states, "Additionally, each Task Order under a contract vehicle may count as a separate instance of Past Experience as long as each individual Task Order meets all other required criteria, to include dollar value." |
| Will the government allow offerors to combine multiple follow-on task orders from a SATOC as past experience? | Language has been added to Section L to clarify that multiple examples of past experience may be submitted to fulfil the 'time duration' requirements (as long as all other criteria are met). |
| Attachment_1_-_Draft_Section_L_ABAD, 5.2.2 Subfactor Two (Past Experience) |
Attachment_2_-_Draft_Section_M_ABAD, 3.2 Subfactor 2: Past Experience Will the Government evaluate past experience from subcontractors to satisfy the past experience requirements? Language has been added to Section L, 5.2.2 to clarify.
| Attachment_14_-_Draft_IDIQ_Labor_Category_List | Will the Government please add three levels to the Subject Matter Expert (SME) labor category to allow a wider range of expertise to be allocated to the program? | The Government intends to update the labor category list attachment for the final solicitation to differentiate these levels. | |
| 2.9.2.2 Table and Chart Instructions | Does the government intend this paragraph to apply to figures, drawings, and graphics in addition to tables and charts? Figures, drawings and graphics are not addressed in the Draft Section L. | ||
| Graphic images are required to respond to Section L requirements, particularly for Volume I (Scenario) OV-1 and other renderings. | Section L, 2.9.2.2, has been updated to allow the use of these tools. | ||
| 2.9.2.2 Table and Chart Instructions. | The 2.9.2.2 Table and Chart instructions ONLY allows times New Roman font type and not less than 10pt font. Will the government allow no less than 8pt font for tables, charts, graphics, drawings and figures as long as it is legible on a printed copy? | The Government has updated this section. | |
| 2.9.2.1 General Page & Slide Instructions. | The 2.9.2.1 general page and slide instructions allow Times New Roman OR Arial font type. Will the government allow different font for Tables, Charts, and Graphics? | ||
| The Government will require one of the two indicated fonts for all aspects of the proposal. | |||
| 2.11(b)(2) | The Government states in this section copies of NDAs with non-Government advisors should be included on or before final proposal submission. Can the Government please provide this POC information now to ensure such agreements are worked and in place as we anticipated an accelerated proposal submission suspense upon final RFP release? | Section L has been updated with the following language, "If the offeror desires to establish non-disclosure agreements with the non-government advisors, contact both the Government Contracting Officer and Government Contract Specialist with any relevant details no later than 10 days prior to the proposal deadline." Section L, 2.11, has also had additional language added allowing the offeror to waive the need for NDAs with each non-governemnt advisor. In either event, the offeror will need to submit 2.1.1 indicating the choice. | |
| Section I, FAR 52.222-2, Payment of Overtime Premiums | Can the Government please clarify whether section (a) of the referenced clause will be completed at the individual TO level or if the Government intends to provide at the IDIQ level? Understanding of this information is important to ensure compliance with local labor laws and appropriate pricing. | Overtime and its associated costs will be determined at the task order level. | |
| 3.2 Oral presentations | In the 2nd paragraph, the 3rd sentence begins with the requirement "At least one member of the offeror’s presentation team shall have the authority to make binding decisions on behalf of the offeror.., " Typically a Contracts representative (i.e. Contract Manager, Contract Administrator, etc.) are the only authorized personnel able to make binding decisions on behalf of the offeror. Requiring an officer with full authority would constrain our team to include a corporate contracts officer rather than a subject matter expert as a presenter. Since the presentation is virtual, allowing a non-presenting executive/contract officer to monitor the presentation and respond immediately to Government decision requirements fulfils the requirement for an executive/contract officer presence while still allowing offerors to provide the best technical presentation for evaluation. Will the Government allow a non-presenting executive/contract officer, in addition to the 3 presenters, to monitor the presentation and respond immediately to Government decision requirements? | This language has been removed from Section L. | |
| 3.2 Oral presentations | It is unclear what type of binding decisions the Government anticipates during orals, please clarify so we can have the appropriate personnel available. | The relevant language has been removed. | |
| Oral Presentations | In the interest of providing people who can present the necessary technical insight, would the Government please remove the requirement for the PM to be the 'main presenter' of the presentation team? We understand the requirement for the PM to be part of the presentation team but request the flexibility to have the most suitable presenter for the various sections of the oral presentation. For example, the PM for overall effort and the technical reps for the solution and technical details. | The relevant language has been removed. | |
| Lines 49 & 55 & para 5.2.1.2 | What type of DJI drone should we account for in the Technical Scenario? References only indicate a DJI variant and the Government provided GFP lists two distinct types of DJI drones currently part of the RADSIL efforts. | The GFP list is unrelated to the scenario. The Government does not intend to specify drone models. Offerors should have a thorough understanding of all possible threats that fit the criteria provided. | |
| M - 3.2; L-5.2.2 | Will the government clarify the maximum # of past experience citations? The Section M indicates limit of 3 and the Section L says a minimum of 1 each for integration, program management, and SOFA experience. | Added Section L Language: "Multiple contracts may be submitted to fulfill the minimum time requirement of each past experience category." Also added the bolded text to section M 3.2: "The offeror may submit three separate contracts, one contract that includes all three pieces, multiple contracts per past experience category, or any combination in between." 3.2 also added, "If the offeror submits multiple contracts for a single past experience category, only the first contracts listed whose periods of performance add up to meet the minimum timeline requirement will be evaluated. Subsequent contracts will not be evaluated, even if past experience examples provided earlier in the offeror’s documentation fail to meet any other past experience evaluation criteria." | |
| 4.2.a | Will the government consider adjusting the evaluation process to remove the FFP blind rate card? The planned use of a 10 year Firm Fixed Price rate card without price realism attached creates a significant operational mission risk for the government. The unknown nature of the FFP rate card and its impact on the proposed total evaluated price may result in a skewed competitive range and companies bidding lower rates with the hope of ‘curing’ by adding labor categories with higher rates or renegotiating rates before the end of the period of performance. A ‘run’ to the bottom of rates could lead to challenging execution conditions for properly compensating and retaining the necessary talented personnel in foreign locations required to execute the ABAD effort at a high level. | FFP labor rates have been removed from the solicitation documents. | |
| 4.2.a | Will the government reduce Period of Performance on the FFP rate card to 5 years and establish a means to negotiate and adjust rates across execution? The variety of foreign locations across a 10 year PoP inherently contains a large number and type of unknowns creating uncertainty which will drive contractors to bid exponentially higher out year rates in compensation. | FFP labor rates have been removed from the solicitation documents. | |
| 2.6.5 & 6.2(2) | Para indicates the potential for extended hours and surge capability beyond 8hrs/day and/or 40hrs per week. Will the prime have the ability to negotiate overtime rates and additional compensation at the TO level? | Overtime and its associated costs will be determined at the task order level. | |
| N/A | Will the government serve as the importer/exporter of record for all items? | The Government will work with the contractor for import/export of records but this will not be a sole responsibility of the Government |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .