Batch 3 -- EWAAC Draft RFP Responses from Industry w_comments from govt.pdf

Reference (if provided) Suggestions, Questions, & Comments from Industry Government Response

1 L - 1.2 & L - 2.4.2

L-1.2 GENERAL INFORMATION states:

j. Security: The majority of Delivery Order (DO)/ Task Order (TO) requirements on this contract will be at a minimum at the SECRET level.

Security requirements shall be addressed at the DO/TO level pending specific program requirements. However, not having a security clearance will not exclude offerors from award on the basic contract.

L-2.4.2 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS/DD254 states:

All contractors are required to hold at a minimum a facility clearance level of TOP SECRET with safeguarding at SECRET. Offerors shall complete the DD254 (block 6 and 8). See attached DD254 (Attachment 3) for details.

To be eligible for award, an offeror must have the required clearance at the time of proposal submission. Sponsorship will not be granted.

We suggest that L-1.2 and L-2.4.2 both be revised to reflect a facility clearance level of SECRET.

The IDIQ level requirement will be SECRET, however, the DO/TO level programs will determine the individual requirement specific to programs. The Government will clarify and correct the consistency of Section L language with regards to security requirements.

2 Table L-2.4 Table L-2.4, Section A, Notes to Offerors, has wording that is clipped off and is unreadable in the table.

The Government will make corrections and repost Section L.

3 SAM.gov

1. SAM.GOV currently lists 4 docs. There is a note that states this opportunity has controlled attachments and that a role is required. I’ve never done this before but I clicked the “request role” button and answered the questions. Don’t know if I did that properly. Basically I need to see everything that is associated with this procurement. If these controlled documents must be requested by the person named on our DD2245, let me know and how that person on our end should request these extra documents.

The Government suggests that users having techincal difficulties with Sam.gov use the "Help" link. The EWAAC draft RFP has four documents associated with the solicitation at this time. More may be added at a later date.

We do not have a facility clearance. Is this required prior to us bidding or can this be processed after contract award?

If not, the Government could consider an award for the initial IDIQ but follow-on awards would require facility clearance. There may be on-ramp opportunities for the IDIQ in the future after facility clearance has been obtained. This is not required prior to bidding. However it is required before award of any subsequent task orders. Does your facility have the capability to safeguard classified information?

5 M-3.1.2 & M-3.1.1

I’ve read through all the documents and it is unclear to me how my company should prepare to respond. We do not have a clear understanding of many of the terms used, such as:

a. Digital Trinity Capabilities – we don’t have knowledge of this terminology and thus don’t know how to respond. Section M speaks about “DE Ecosystem”, system models, Authoritative Source of Truth, Digital Thread, Model-Based Systems Engineering, etc. We don’t know how to respond without more information

b. Section M-3.1.2 Agile Processes – one of these bullets speaks about modeling and simulation. We do this but it is unclear how we are to write a proposal to address this section without know what capability is being sought. We could just write about simulation but we don’t know if that is checking the appropriate boxes from the Government point of view.

c. M-3.1.1 Open Architecture – this section mentions “commercially available software tools and formats in the DE Ecosystem.” It is not clear what these tools/formats are nor how a response should be crafted.

The Digitial Trinity is a recent intiative (3-5 years) by which the Government seeks to transform and revolutionize procurement of weapon systems. The Government understands that Industry may not be familur with this concept and is allowing for companies to submit a roadmap to be Digital Trinity capable for this intial award time period. Suggest researching Dr. Roper's white papers on the Digital Trinity.

https://acquisitiontalk.com/2020/10/there-is-no-spoon-a-look-into-will-ropers-new-digital-acquisition-reality/

6 M-3.2.1.1 M-3.2.1.1 – the bullet list is very general. Is the Government simply looking for a narrative that provides evidence of our experience with some or all of these?

Yes.

Subfactor B – Technical has an 8 page limit but I don’t know what we are supposed to include in this section.

See Section L for technical specifications and requirements. The Government requests that offerors dempnstrate relevant and recent examples of experience in the areas detailed in Section M, The Government is attempting to assemble a large pool of contractors which will be available to support the Eglin Weapons Enterprise.

Staffing Proposal – without knowledge of the specific items that may be required on this contract, it is difficult to propose an appropriate staff. The persons involved in this could vary.

Staffing plan should advise of the needed personnel for a post-award conference which will not exceed 1-hour of introduction and Q&A about the EWAAC IDIQ. The post-award conference will not include discussion about future work under the EWAAC.

With undefined deliverables, how does the Government make an LPTA selection?

The Government is more interested in technical acceptability than price for the initial award. The deliverable is the staffing plan for attendance at the post-award conference and meeting minutes. The Government's goal is to onboard as many contractors as possible to compete at the DO/TO level during the 10-year period of performance.

Will you be able to add any of the NAICS codes that were previously recommended.

For any solicitations before 1 Oct 2022, per FAR 19.102 (b) (1) -- states the Government can only have one NAICS code at this time.

11 EGLIN-H001

Is this determined by the NAICS code or is there additional specific criteria that needs to be considered?

Please clarify which paragraph in H001 this is question referring to. There are no discriminators for set-asides at this time.

12 EGLIN-H001

Did the USG intend to reference paragraph 1.5 or is the intent to release FOPRs with the RFP that will need to be priced?

Administrative oversight and will be fixed.

The two paragraphs contradict one another. If the contractor is in process of establishing a SECRET or TOP SECRET facility clearance are they elgible to bid for the basic IDIQ even if not cleared at the time of submittal?

The IDIQ level requirement will be SECRET, however, the DO/TO level programs will determine the individual requirement specific to programs. The Government will clarify and correct the consistency of Section L language with regards to security requirements.

Can the USG evaluate changing the TOP SECRET facility clearance requirement to be tied specifically to the ability to bid FOPRs?

The IDIQ level requirement will be SECRET, however, the DO/TO level programs will determine the individual requirement specific to programs. The Government will clarify and correct the consistency of Section L language with regards to security requirements.

Section L, Para L-

Is it the intent of the USG to have the contractor develop a Small Business Plan at the IDIQ level and allow the goal to be achieved across all awarded DOs?

Yes. FAR 19.705-1 (b) (2) states you can have goals per task order, but you can only have one subcontracting plan per contract.

Section M, Para M-

1.0 Is it the intent of the USG to have detailed pricing information requirements at the IDIQ Basic contract proposal?

No. The Government's intent is to have attendance at the post-award conference at the IDIQ level. That is all.

17 Sec L, Para K 1.2 This says 30-50 awards, but Section M, paragraph 1.2 says 30-60. Administrative oversight and will be fixed.

18 Sec L, Para 2.4.2 This says offeror must have the clearance at time of proposal submission but L.1.2.j says not having a security clearance will not exclude offerors from award.

The IDIQ level requirement will be SECRET, however, the DO/TO level programs will determine the individual requirement specific to programs. The Government will clarify and correct the consistency of Section L language with regards to security requirements.

19 Sec L, Para 3.1.2 There is a reference to paragraph L.6.2, but this paragraph doesn’t exist. Administrative oversight and will be fixed.

20 Sec L, Para 4.1.1 Admin/Typo - there is no para "4.1.2" Administrative oversight and will be fixed.

Taken together, it appears that the government expects a cost proposal (with build-up detail) to be provided, rather than merely submitting a Price. Since the government is stipulating the maximum amount for the first/minimum task order is $1,000, it seems to be unnecessary for a cost/price proposal with build-up. We recommend just requiring the submission of a price.

The Government does not expect a detailed pricing plan but does expect the title/labor category of the personnel attending the post-award conference and the fully burdened rates for those personnel. The post-award conference will not exceed one-hour and will be held virtually.

It seems that the proposal requirements and evaluation methodology as currently outlined will be labor intensive – not only for the offerors, but also for the government evaluators. The tenor of the documents suggests that the government is desiring a quick proposal evaluation and many resultant IDIQ contracts, including the minimum order of up to $1,000. The amount of data requested, specifically for the technical volume, is out of phase with this apparent intent.

the amount of information that has to be included in the proposal, and then evaluated and documented by the government will drive the award timeline to the right with no real ultimate benefit to the government.

The Government is attempting to assemble a large pool of contractors which will be available to support the Eglin Weapons Enterprise at Eglin AFB. Inclusion in this IDIQ provides industry with the ability bid on projects for up to a 10-year POP and the high ceiling of $46B is intended to capture the majority of the Eglin Weapons Enterprise programs. As a result, the Government feels a $1K post-award conference is fair.

23 Para L-5

Small Business Subcontracting Plan: Without having an actual scope to bid against, we would have difficulty providing a meaningful Small Business Plan in response to this RFP. Is it the government’s intention to only require this for subsequent contract orders awarded under this IDIQ? There will likely be more than one XXX business units bidding on this IDIQ (likely two). This is consistent with our business operating model—are there any concerns from the government with this approach?

The Government recommends offerors develop a Subcontracting Plan which is based on the type of work the offeror's businees usually performs and based on use of small, small disadvantaged, service disabled veteran owned, woman owned, and HUBZone businesses. The Government understands it could be difficult to predict an overall subcontracting plan without knowledge of possible delivery orders, the DoD Goals are there for a reference to use or you could base it on the type of work you normally perform and your typical use of small, small disadvantaged, service disabled veteran owned, woman owned, and HUBZone businesses.

24 Para L-3.1.1.1/2/3 the statement “(minimum technical requirements which must be met)” is confusing because it potentially conflicts with the term “could demonstrate proficiency” that precedes it. In addition, the referenced paragraphs (M- 3.1.1/.2/.3) state “some or all of the following activities” so the context of minimum is not understood. This should be clarified.

The Government is considering industry feedback relating to how many areas within a technical requirement are necessary to be considered for that specific area.

25 Para L-5 alternates the mention of Table L-5.1 and Table L-3.1. It looks like you intended to use only L-5.1 as Table L-3.1 does not exist.

Formatting and will be coreccted prior to official RFP release.

26 SOO 5.1.3 is a duplicate of 5.1.2. 5.1.3 should be deleted. Formatting and will be coreccted prior to official RFP release.

27 Table L-2.3 Section A, Notes to Offerors. The text in that cell has been cut off. The Government will make corrections and repost Section L.

28 L-3.1.2

First Paragraph, First sentence. For technical Sub Factor (B) it wants the offeror to demonstrate a complete understanding of SOO paragraph 5.0, but

5.0 also contains Digital Trinity which was addressed in Sub Factor A. It should be made clear that Sub Factor B does not need to further address Digital Trinity.

Formatting and will be coreccted prior to official RFP release.

29 L3.1.2 Second Paragraph, First sentence. There is a reference to section L-6.2 but that section does not exist. Perhaps it was meant to be section M-3.2.

Formatting and will be coreccted prior to official RFP release.

1. Are the anticipated number of awards and funding ceiling for EWAAC being increased due to demand from the Air Force for this contract vehicle?

Are there designated contacts from the Armament Directorate, DET-1, AFRL, and AFNWC that are leading their organization plans to increasingly use this contract vehicle for competitions and awards?

The Government's intent is for the EWAAC to be used by the entire Eglin Weapons Enterprise and all weapons related programs will have access to this vehicle.

2. What (if any) are the percentage requirements for small business participation in EWAAC contract awards to large business? Are there requirements for opportunities that will be restricted to small business competition?

The DoD goals for subcontracting are mentioned in the table L-5.1 of Section L. These are suggested goals. You should propose goals in accordance to your normal use of small, small disadvantaged, service disabled veteran owned, woman owned, and HUBZone businesses. At this time, small business set asides are not being considered.

Section L, Para L-

1.2 vs L-2.4.2

32 L-2.4.4, para 1 Could the Air Force provide the OCI Mitigation Plan template (Attachment L-1) referenced in this section?

Contractor format is acceptable. The Government will review to enusre there is no OCI or is it mitigated.

33 L-3.1.2, para 2 Reference to "paragraph L-6.2". L-6.2 does not exist. Formatting and will be coreccted prior to official RFP release.

34 L-3.0 Information provided in these Sections is very similar. Which Section takes precedence if there is a discrepancy?

An offeror would need to qualify in one or more areas and be Digital Trinity capable, or provide a process roadmap for that capability. The components of the Digital Trinity can be found in Section L.3.1.1.

Reference prior Eglin Agile Acquisition IDIQ structuring. Will there be EWAAC Basic IDIQ CDRLs over the ordering period? If so, request the Air Force provides a draft DD-1423 prior to final-RFP release.

There will be a baseline of CDRLS (cost and schedule for example) in the base IDIQ that are pending.

36 OP-H001

May we assume this document is solely a reference for future Delivery Orders?

The Government's intent is to establish terms and conditions as a baseline.

37 L2.3.1, para 1 Due to rapid RFP response time, please provide advanced copies of the Model Contract and Sections A-K prior to final-RFP release.

Understood, additional updates pending to betaSAM.

Would the Government consider two pools: one for Small Businesses, and one for Large Businesses?

Not at this time.

Would the Government reconsider using LPTA (as stated in paragraph M- 1.0.a) as the basis for award at the IDIQ level? LPTA could instead be used on individual Task Orders, as appropriate. At the IDIQ level, it may limit future options.

The Government's use of LPTA is ONLY for the overall IDIQ in an effort to make the maximum amount of awards. Each DO/TO will establish the appropriate source selection procedures and evaluation criteras which may or may not use LPTA.

40 Para M-1.0 a Paragraph M-1.0.a states this is an LPTA solicitation. However, paragraph M-1.2 references “best value.” Is the IDIQ an LPTA or Best Value award?

The IDIQ is an LPTA, this will be fixed prior to the official RFP release.

41 Sec M-4

4. Section M-4.0 of the RFP indicates that Offerors’ cost/price volumes will be evaluated on compliance and completeness of the following two elements: a) a staffing proposal for attendance to the virtual post-award kickoff and b) a capability statement that demonstrates how the offeror will comply with Section L; Paragraph 4.1.1.b. (acceptability of Offeror’s accounting system). Neither Section L or M indicate that Offerors are required to provide actual rates or any form of rate substantiation. Will the Government please confirm that this is an accurate assumption? If not, will the Government please provide detailed instructions on how Offerors must present this data as well as the methodology in which the proposed rates will be evaluated?

The Government does not expect a detailed pricing plan but does expect the title/labor category of the personnel attending the post-award conference and the fully burdened rates for those personnel. The post award conference will not exceed one-hour and will be held virtually.

Are offerors required and/or expected to propose subcontractors at the IDIQ level? If “yes,” will offerors be able to add additional subcontractors when deemed necessary to bid on a Task Order?

No. If the offeror's business is "Other than Small" the proposal will need a subcontracting plan included that will cover the entire IDIQ at the time of bid.

However, with LPTA, a Small Business Participation Plan that binds the offeror holds you to certain subcontractors is not required.

43 Sec L 3.1.2 Section L-3.1.2 references a later paragraph, L-6.2, for offerors to consider when providing information on relevant/recent work. There is no paragraph L-6.2, however. Can the Government clarify this requirement?

Formatting and will be coreccted prior to official RFP release.

44 M 5.0-C Paragraph M-5.0.c (2nd bullet) references a Table in Section L, specifically L-3.16.3. The table does not exist, however. Does the Government mean Table L-5.1?

Formatting and will be coreccted prior to official RFP release.

45 L-5 Paragraph L-5 contains multiple references to Table L-3.1. The table does not exist, however. Does the Government mean Table L-5.1?

Formatting and will be coreccted prior to official RFP release.

46 Are any evaluation factors or subfactors more important than another?

For the award of the EWAAC IDIQ, technical acceptability is significantly more important than price. Subsequent TO/DO will establish their own levels of importance per their requirements.

47 M 3.0

Paragraph M-3.0 allows offerors to either 1) demonstrate competence, or 2) submit a roadmap to get there. However, none of the following paragraphs leaves any allowance for the latter. What are the compliance requirements for the roadmaps (e.g., quantification of “allowable” time, scope, etc.)?

Contractor format of the roadmap is acceptable if the contractor is not currently capable of meeting the Digital Trinity requirement. The Government will review and verify the application of the contractor's roadmap to enusre it is sufficient to meet Digital Trinity within the expected timeframe.

48 L 3.1.2

Is there a limit as to how many contracts offerors can use in responding to L-

3.1.2 and its subparagraphs? Or does the Government only require that the page count be maintained irrespective of the number of contracts referenced?

This is not a typical FAR Part 15 source selection. The intent is to streamline the process as much as possible for the IDIQ award. The Government would expect to see relevent and recent experieince in regards to the requirements in Section L 3.1.2.

49 Sec M

In Section M, many of the evaluation areas state “offeror has demonstrated some or all of the following.” Is it safe to assume that since no number was set, that one competency would suffice as meeting the “some” threshold?

The Government is considering industry feedback relating to how many areas within a technical requirement are necessary to be considered for that specific area.

If an offeror determines that their organization has no existing or potential OCI is that offeror still required to submit a Draft OCI Mitigation Plan?

No. Interested parties should identify that you do not have a OCI or a potential OCI.

Recommend the tentative RPF window of 25 June to 9 July be extended or broadened. Currently the window directly overlaps the 4th of July Holiday during which many Americans, both in government and industry, travel and/or seek liberal vacation time.

The schedule is notional, however program needs/ time constriants necessitate the accelerated schedule. The Government is reviewing the schedule and may make adjustments. The Government will continue to post updates often and recieve industry feedback used to refine requirements. The Government expects that this continued flow of information will enable industry to be prepared for a shorter RFP period.

Is it possible for the government to hold an “Industry Day” at the START of the RFP process? A few of the products (SOO, Ordering procedures) are tough to navigate. An industry day could help immensely to further clarify expectations especially regarding digital engineering, digital trinity, open system architectures and overall timelines.

No. The Government will post feedback to betaSAM as often as possible but an industry day would not faciliate our accelerated timeline to award.

SOO para 4.3.1, p2 & Sec L, Para L 1.6, pg 5

Administrative corrections:

a. SOO p.2, para 4.3.1, delete “includes”

b. Sec L, p.5, Para L-1.6, DISCREPENCIES misspelled. Correct to “Discrepancies”.

Administrative oversight and will be fixed.

54 Sec M, para 3.1

Section M, para 3.1 (and other documents) direct a “roadmap” for companies that may need to lay out their timeline for meeting digital engineering expectations. While the government clearly lays out in the draft the expected activities (para 3.1.1)--does the government have a “roadmap template”—a standardized TABLE that may facilitate industry roadmaps into a more consumable “apples to apples” format?

There is no roadmap template being provided. Contractor format of the roadmap is acceptable if the contractor is not currently capable of meeting the Digital Trinity requirement. The Government will review and verify the application of the contractor's roadmap to enusre it is sufficient to meet Digital Trinity within the expected timeframe.

How does Golden Horde’s “Digital Colosseum” tie into EWAAC? If there are connections, could industry get some fidelity in the RFP?

Could you please elaborate on the context of this question? The Government is seeking all qualified experiece to meet the Digital Trinity. The IDIQ DO/TO would potentially include work related to the Eglin Weapons Enterprise.

Regarding government reference architectures (GRAs), Sec M, p.2 states:

a. “Utilization and implementation of Government Reference Architectures (GRAs) in the DE Plan. The GRA is a general-purpose architecture design consisting of data models that capture the physical, logical, and functional description of a common open systems architecture.” It is clear that industry is expected to adhere to the GRA provided by the government. However, different services have different GRAs. Does the government know which GRA will be used yet? If not, when would government provide the expected GRA? Knowing these answers will further inform industry to yield stronger/cogent responses.

The GRA, version 1.0 will be provided as GFI within the RFP and the basic IDIQ.

Ordering Procedures are tough to understand in their current form—worded currently in a “tough to navigate” kind of way. For example, it’s not clear how the ordering procedures lay out against a relative timeline. That add may help give context.

This is not quantified at the IDIQ level but at the DO/TO level.

To clarify, the only “cost and pricing data” required in the proposal is the NTE of $1,000 to attend the virtual post-award conference?

The Government does not expect a detailed pricing plan but does expect the title/labor category of the personnel attending the post-award conference and the fully burdened rates for those personnel. The post-award conference will not exceed one-hour and will be held virtually.

Given that no specific task cost and pricing data are provided in the proposal, what is the process for the government to let a draft contract after proposal submittal (shown as 12 August on page 6 of the Industry Engagement briefing)?

The Government is still defininig the award process. This question cannot be definitivly addressed at this time.

60 SOO, para 2

Draft Statement of Objectives paragraph 2 identifies multiple potential IDIQ categories. Will respondents be eligible for only specific categories based on the proposal responses (primarily Volume II, Management/Technical Proficiency)?

No. If you receive an EWAAC IDIQ award you are eligible for future work at the DO/TO level for which you are competetive and capable of performing the work.

Does your acquisition strategy allow “cross-teaming”, i.e. our business submits a bid as a Prime as Large business with our team of small businesses teammates AND supports another bidder as a subcontractor under their separate submission?

Yes. The Government does not desire formal teaming at the outset of the contract in order to allow for maximum flexibility.

Does the IDIQ support “direct to Subcontractor” pass-through awards? For example, if a FOPR is issued against a particular capability that our company holds as an IDIQ subcontractor, can we be placed on direct contract?

No. Vendors who are not awarded an IDIQ level award, will not be able to compete at the DO/TO level.

If we submit as prime, and are awarded an IDIQ contract with our established teammates at time of selection, can we add teammates later following FOPRs or DOs issued under the IDIQ?

Yes.

L5 SBSP, Table L 5.1

Please confirm that references to Table L-3.1 are actually meant to reference L-5.1.

Yes. These references will be corrected to reference Table L-5.1

65 L5 SBSP

Can the Government confirm that they actually want both, the Small Business subcontracting goals must be expressed in terms of percent of contract value in addition to percent of subcontracted amount?

The Government prefers a percentage of total subcontract dollars. Section L will be amended.

66 L5 SBSP

The goals identified are a function of the DoD Contract Value, should they be identified as a function of subcontracted value?

No.

67 L5 SBSP

“Large business offerors shall submit a written small business subcontracting plan that complies with FAR 52.219-9 (DEVIATION 2016- O0009), and DFARS 252.219-7003 (DEVIATION 2016-O0009) (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the Offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan).” The thresholds in 52.219-9 (DEVIATION 2016-O0009), for assurances in (9) and 11(iii) are lower than what the current FAR requirement recommends. Please confirm that the prime will be required to require subcontracting plans from all subcontractors that have subcontracts in excess of $700,000 ($1.5 million for construction of any public facility) with further subcontracting possibilities (vs the current threshold of $750k) and that primes must keep records on each subcontract as to whether SB, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZones, SDB, WOSBs were solicited for each procurement over $150k vs the current threshold of $250k.

This is an administrative oversight. The current value is $750,000. The requiremments for subcontracting plans are provided step by step in FAR 19.704. The FAR clause 52.219-9 no longer has those deviations.

M-5.0 SMALL

BUSINESS

SUBCONTRACTI

NG PLAN (SBSP)

c.

“The offeror proposes to meet or exceed goals shown in Table L-3.16.3 or provides substantiated rationale for proposed goals which are lower than those in the table.” There is no Table L-3.16.3

Administrative oversight and will be fixed.

69 SS Sec 5.1.3 Paragraph 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 are duplicates Administrative oversight and will be fixed.

L-2.4.2

SECURITY

REQUIREMENTS

/DD254

The Draft RFP has multiple facility security references that appear to conflict. For example, some sections require TOP SECRET facility requirements while others reference only a SECRET or no facility security requirements.

The IDIQ level requirement will be SECRET, however, the DO/TO level programs will determine the individual requirement specific to programs. The Government will clarify and correct the consistency of Section L language with regards to security requirements.

71 L-3.1.2 There is no L-6.2. Can you please delete the comment or add section L-6.2 to the RFP.

This reference will be corrected to reflect Section M-3.2.

72 L5 There is no Table L-3.1, we believe the text should be changed to reference Table L-5.1

Concur. These references will be corrected to reflect Table L-5.1

L-3.1.2.1.3

SUBFACTOR B-1-

3:

PROTOTYPING

AND

EXPERIMENTAT

ION

Our experience is that close geographic proximity significantly helps with this (i.e. deliver rapid mechanical prototype for customer/Eglin feedback the next day).

To ensure rapid incremental builds with integrated learning cycles, propose adding to Section L-1.2.l such as:

Notice of Condition to Eligibility: Offerors principle location of performance shall be within 400 miles of Eglin AFB FL.

The Government does not benefit from a geographic limit.

M-3.2

SUBFACTOR B:

TECHNICAL

Please clarify if intent is to change from SOW to SOO Yes. This reference should be to the SOO and will be corrected.

75 M-3.2.1.4 Recommend adding another bullet to say: Offer shall provide assurance of this requirement via independent certification of

ISO9001/AS9100D/NADCAP

The Government will take upon advisment and make necessary adjustments if necessary.

L-3.1.2, Subfactor B: Technical

It is recommended that USAF clarify this reference of the Weapons Sub-factor with a paragraph or page number.

Subfactor B-1 (Armament/Weapons Development) is subordinate to Subfactor B (Technical) under Section L-3.1.2. Both reside on p. L-9

77 M-4.0

Our interpretation is that Section M is the location to detail criteria for acceptable and unacceptable cost volumes. LPTA may not be recommended due to the nature of this work, especially for rapid prototype. Further, Team xxx recommends strong measures to encourage realistic pricing by determining as unawardable offerors whose price volume is judged unrealistic.

The Government's use of LPTA is ONLY for the overall IDIQ in an effort to make the maximum amount of awards. Each DO/TO will establish the appropriate source selection procedures and evaluation criteras which may or may not use LPTA.

What’s anticipated timeframe for release of final RFP and anticipated response time allowed?

The government intends to provide an updated notional schedule in the near future.

79 Sec L 4

Volume II has assigned 10 pages for Sub factor A and 8 pages for Sub factor B. If Sub factor A uses only 9 pages and Sub factor B needs 9 pages, will the Government allow us to adjust Sub factor page counts as long as we don’t exceed 18 pages?

No. Mix-matching of the page limits will not be permitted.

80 Sec L 7 Missing section L-2.4.3 This is an administrative oversight and will be fixed.

81 Sec L 14

Table L-1.3, pg L-4, shows Volume IV as SB Subcontracting Plan. Section L-5, pg L14, doesn’t call out the plan as Volume IV. Please clarify that the SB Subcontracting Plan will be Volume IV in our proposal submission?

This is an administrative oversight and will be fixed.

82 Sec L 14

The overall SB goal given in the draft RFP aligns with recommended “Subcontracting Goals” per the DoD SB website. Normally, we adhere to “Prime Goals” as the Prime. Link: https://business.defense.gov/About/Goals and-Performance/. Can you please provide clarification?

That's not what that means. The referenced link to the DoD SB Website shows the prime goals given to the DoD by the SBA for all of the Prime contracts it writes. Each branch of service and DoD agency has their own goals that come together to make this combined goal for the DoD. That is how the SBA grades us on our Scorecard each year.

The SBA also gives us subcontracting goals which we can only make by transferring those goals to the Primes who write subcontracts.

83 Sec L 14/M 5

Section L-5 addresses the requirement for a Small Business Subcontracting Plan, but no reference to Small Business Participation Plan. Section M-5 addresses the Small Business Participation Plan. Please clarify if the Small Business Participation Plan will be required for the proposal submission.

Small Business Participation Plans are not required with LPTA type contracts.

84 Sec L 5

Offerors shall identify any existing or potential conflicts and provide a legible, clear, and coherent Organizational Conflict Of Interest Mitigation Plan IAW template provided in Attachment L-1. If an offeror does not have any existing or potential conflicts, may a offeror provide a statement in lieu of a OCI Mitigation Plan?

No, a mitigation plan must be submitted. Contractor format for the mitigation plan is acceptable.

85 Sec L 3.1.2 The second paragraph references L-6.2, but this paragraph doesn’t exist. This is an administrative oversight and will be fixed.

86 Sec L 4.2.6 L-4.2.6 asks for info on our DCMA and DCAA offices, but so does L-6.0.b.

One of these paragraphs should be deleted and only the info that is needed for source selection should be consolidated into the remaining paragraph.

The government will have updated language in the final version of the RFP.

87 Sec L 6.0 c

I understand asking for contractor locations of performance, but including subcontractor locations is a stretch at this point because specific team make-up will be determined on a task order basis. Any info provided now would surely be lacking or ultimately incomplete since the work on individual TOs will vary greatly in the skills and proficiencies needed. The same goes for percentage of work at each location – it isn’t relevant at this point. I recommend that you remove this language.

The government will delete the requirement for sub-contractor locations from the official version of the RFP.

88 Q&A # 50

Please confirm that an OCI Plan as detailed in Section L of Draft RFP is not required to be submitted with the proposal if we do not perceive there to be an OCI with the EWAAC IDIQ solicitation. Our assumption based on the Government response to Question 50 is that if a potential OCI exits for a future task order, an OCI Mitigation Plan would be submitted at that time.

That is correct. If there is a real or percieved OCI at the DO/TO, a mitigation plan will be required for that specific matter.

Ordering Procedures

What is the contract type for this initial delivery order to attend the post-award teleconference? We want to ensure our proposal pricing matches.

FFP for the initial IDIQ award. There will be various contract types at the DO/TO level.

Is the contract for limited to the customers listed in the Draft SOO, Introduction paragraph – “Customers include AFLCMC/EB divisions, SOCOM Det-1, Air Force Research Lab (AFRL), and the Air Force Nuclear Warfare Center (AFNWC)”- or can this contract be used by any entity within the U.S. Air Force?

The intent of this IDIQ is to support all organizations within Eglin's Weapons Enterprise. This includes the customers listed within the SOO.

If Eglin only, would the government stipulate what contracts are coming up for rebid under OASIS/TAMS? Would the Government make a definitive statement that this work would go to the EWAAC contract vehicle?

OASIS/TAMS/etc. are not within the pervue/scope of this acquisition. The intent of this IDIQ is not to provide services such as A&AS.

Of the existing Eglin contracts (not counting Eglin Range Contract) how much of the expected TOs/DOs will be Full and Open? How likely is it that recompete work which is now SB set-aside would be competed as a Full and Open DO under EWAAC?

The government's intent of the EWAAC contract is to provide full and open competition within Eglin's Weapons Enterprise. It is not the intent to pull small business set asides into the EWAAC as they are currently perfomed.