BAA-AFRL-RQKS-2015-0009-IndustryDay-Q As.pdf

Industry Day Q&As

BAA-AFRL-RQKS-2015-0009

Mission Systems Open Architecture Science & Technology (MOAST)

Industry Day (12 August 2015) * Questions and Answers

1) Q: In the Industry Day Briefing slides, one of the technical areas of interest listed is “Open

System Architecture Advanced Technology Demonstrations” – is this the formal definition?

A: This does not refer to the formal definition of “Advanced Technology Demonstrations (ATDs).”

2) Q: What is the anticipated release date of the BAA?

A: It is estimated that the BAA will be released in the October/November time-frame.

3) Q: How many Task Orders are anticipated? How many topic areas will be covered?

A: Issuance of two (2) Task Orders (TOs) is anticipated at contract award. The TOs will cover multiple research areas.

4) Q: Will there be one (1) TO issued to each awardee?

A: The anticipated strategy is to award two (2) multiple award, fair opportunity IDIQ contracts with one (1) TO each. However, we reserve the right to select any, all, part or none of each proposal based on the submittals.

5) Q: Pricing will be on the TOs not the Basic IDIQ, correct?

A: Pricing will be accomplished at the TO level.

6) Q: Do you anticipate having some form of classified network where the AFRL and contractor laboratories/facilities can communicate?

A: That is yet to be determined.

7) Q: Will discussions be allowed after the BAA is released?

A: Yes, discussions will be allowed up until the proposal due date. Any information provided by the Government that serves as necessary requirement clarification or that would provide an unfair competitive advantage will be compiled and posted to FedBizOpps.

8) Q: Do you anticipate requirements for flight testing, on this contract vehicle, thus requiring flight safety reviews and certifications to be addressed within the proposal(s)?

A: We do not anticipate flight testing at this time; however, if required, information will be provided within the BAA.

9) Q: Does the anticipated $48M ceiling value include flight test demonstrations?

A: If flight testing is determined to be required on this effort, the associated costs would be a part of the $48M budget.

10) Q: Would $48M be spread linearly across the years or would it vary per year?

A: The funding profile is not available at this time but will be provided within the BAA.

11) Q: What is the relationship between AVAMP TO 2 and the cyber-resiliency aspects of MOAST?

A: While there are obvious overlaps in terms of the cybersecurity research areas, these are two separate programs/contracts.

12) Q: What is the anticipated date of award? Is that date solid?

A: The current, estimated contract award date is February 2016. This is not a firm date. An updated estimate will be provided within the BAA.

13) Q: How long after the BAA release will proposals be due?

A: Proposals are typically due 30-45 days after BAA release.

14) Q: It was stated that this effort will be classified up to the TS/SCI level – will there be a method to communicate SAP or SCI proposals?

A: We do not anticipate the first two (2) TOs to be classified at the TS/SCI level. Further, all proposals for the IDIQ and TOs 0001 and 0002 shall be submitted at the unclassified level only.

Classified proposals and/or addendums/appendices will not be accepted.

15) Q: Will there be a simulation environment?

A: Yes, there are a number of simulation environments that the offeror would have access to should base support be proposed/utilized.

16) Q: Will agile software development processes be part of this effort?

A: That is not ruled out as part of the effort.

17) Q: What level of collaboration do you anticipate with others such as LCMC, DoD and other external open architecture communities?

A: We work closely and anticipate a lot of collaboration with LCMC as well as other services. With the subject matter encompassed in this effort there are opportunities for cross-organizational and cross-service collaboration which is a part of AFRL/RYWA’s mission.

18) Q: If an offeror wants to use the available base support/facilities, must they request it in their proposal? Further, if included in the proposal is there a value associated with the base support which is included into the proposed cost to level the playing field among proposers or does the fact that it’s available for all to include make it a wash?

A: The use of base support/facilities is being made available to all interested parties, thus providing an equal playing field. Therefore, no additional dollar values will be added to offers for proposed use of the available facilities. However, intended use of the facilities must be included in the proposal(s).

19) Q: Will it hurt us to request use of your laboratory?

A: No. Proposed use of the available RY facilities is highly encouraged. Further, given the possible classification levels of the effort and systems that may be required for technology integration, the MOAST Laboratory may be the only location where some work can be performed.

In addition, it is desired on MOAST to establish a vibrant in-house capability as an extension to the existing Government research team.

20) Q: How does MOAST relate to other RY open systems architecture efforts, such as the System

Integration Lab (SIL)?

A: The MOAST Program is synergistic but not duplicative of other ongoing open systems efforts.

MOAST is focused on evolving the OMS and UCI family of standards initially and then investigating other open architecture standards.

21) Q: If a contractor currently has the hardware environment established in-house and is solely developing software to address the TOs, will the hardware be required as a deliverable?

A: This would be reviewed and determined on a case by case basis.

22) Q: Are there Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) issues with companies currently in OMS?

A: Companies are required to inform the Government of any potential OCIs that are anticipated to occur prior to or during work performance and further required to submit an OCI mitigation plan with their proposal(s). In addition, if an unfair competitive advantage could be obtained by current work with OMS suggest engaging the contracting office for personalized discussions prior to proposal submittal.

23) Q: When referring to UAVs, are you targeting a specific platform?

A: The scope and objectives of this effort are not targeted to a specific platform.

24) Q: Is AFRL/RYWA willing to hold one-on-one technical discussions to further advance BAA content while simultaneously answering proprietary questions?

A: Yes, please contact the Program Manager, Mr. Charles Satterthwaite (listed in www.fbo.gov).

25) Q: Is AFRL/RYWA able to provide potential offerors the opportunity to tour the MOAST laboratory and/or other related facilities that are directly applicable to this solicitation?

A: No, we are unable to provide tours of the MOAST Laboratory or other related facilities.

26) Q: Would AFRL consider supplying a day-in-the-life description of the laboratory so that potential offerors can appreciate the CONOPS upon which the lab operates and better understand context on how hardware/software components can be introduced/evaluated into the lab?

A: A “day-in-the-life” description of the MOAST Laboratory would only provide potential offerors a general overview of lab operation. We anticipate the CONOPS for the MOAST Laboratory will emerge with the number of projects that are accomplished.

27) Q: Will offerors, other than the initial awardees, be allowed to bid on future task orders?

A: No. Only offerors that have been awarded an IDIQ contract will be requested to bid on future task orders.

28) Q: The anticipated funding was stated to be $48M. Is this funding applicable to the 60-month ordering period or the 84-month delivery period?

A: The anticipated period of performance is 84 months, which consists of a 60-month ordering period and an additional 24-month delivery period. The anticipated funding would cover the entire 84-month effort.

29) Q: During Industry Day it was stated that there may be a conflict of interest with certain OMS participants. We request further information on the specific conflict of interest referenced.

A: The question regarding conflict of interest was raised by a prospective offeror, not the

Government. Prospective contractors will be required to address potential OCI issues and explain how the risks can/will be mitigated.

30) Q: Will there be a small business set-aside for this effort.

A: There are no set-asides anticipated for this effort.

http://www.fbo./