AWIPS_Industry_Day_Q A_Contract_ _Admin_Questions.pdf

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE (NWS)

ADVANCED WEATHER INTERACTIVE PROCESSING

SYSTEM (AWIPS)

INDUSTRY DAY CONTRACT AND ADMINISTRATIVE

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Industry Day Contract and Administrative Questions and Answers

The following responses reflect the Government’s answers to questions raised by prospective Offerors who attended the NOAA

AWIPS Industry Day event held on 03-05 February 2015. Items prefaced by numbers beginning “CQA” refer to questions related to contractual and administrative issues; items prefaced by numbers beginning “TQA” are technical in nature. Please note that all references to the AWIPS Technical Library pertain to the following URL: https://vlab.ncep.noaa.gov/web/awips-technical-library

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question

CQA1. What is the rationality behind the type of contract chosen for this solicitation?

The Government intends to award a single Performance-

Based Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract as a result of this solicitation, comprised of both fixed price and cost reimbursement Contract Line Item

Numbers (CLINs). The rationale for the contract type chosen is to give the Government flexibility as to task order type, depending upon the nature of the specific requirement.

CQA2.

The draft RFP references both cost stability and cost reduction in multiple sections. How do you envision achieving both cost stability and reduction in a multi-year FFP contract?

Please see the response to CQA1 above. Offerors are encouraged to find proactive ways to contain and reduce costs wherever feasible (without degrading the quality of service), through innovative solutions and continuous improvement of the efficiency of the AWIPS system. Any savings achieved will be reinvested in that objective.

CQA3.

How do you envision cost reduction initiatives impacting a FFP O&M task order?

Offerors are encouraged to find ways to reduce costs on

Operations and Maintenance task orders. It is envisioned that these cost savings will then be used to “re-invest” in the AWIPS program.

CQA4. SOO states "Positive/negative incentives to support the NWS in accomplishing its organizational and program objectives. The result will be a negotiated,

(1) The Contractor will provide the positive/negative incentives with its Quality Assurance Surveillance https://vlab.ncep.noaa.gov/web/awips-technical-library

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question

Performance-Based Contract." Will the Government provide the approach for the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINS and the methodology for the incentives?

For ease of evaluation, vendor recommends that Offerors provide a fixed price contract with proposed disincentives. Thus, all proposals will have a stated ceiling vs those with a base and +/- incentives, where an implied ceiling may or may not be reasonable/realistic.

Plan and Service Level Agreement.

(2) The Government has established the CLIN structure and contract types applicable in accordance with the perceived risks and mission objectives of this program.

CQA5. Would the Government provide sample task orders for the CLINs?

A Representative Task Order will be released with the

RFP.

CQA6.

Please confirm that the requirement for Earned Value Management, cost insight, and other cost-related clauses will not apply to the FFP task orders/CLINs.

Earned Value Management (EVM) is applicable to the

IDIQ. EVMS applies only to any Cost-Reimbursement task orders that may be issued.

CQA7.

Will the Government please define what is meant by “using established government or commercial labor rates”?

Offerors shall provide labor categories, labor category descriptions, and labor category rates for the Product

Improvement CLIN that will be used to negotiate future task orders issued against that CLIN.

CQA8.

Please explain the rationale behind the formulation of the current CLIN structure, especially the fact there is a transition CLIN every year of the Period of Performance.

See Final Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION B.4—

Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). The transition

CLIN is included in the Base Period Year 1, Base Period

Year 6, Option Period I—Year 2, and Option Period II—

Year 2.

CQA9.

This is Performance Based Acquisition. Vendor wants clarification on the rationale behind the nature of the CLIN Structure, especially the FFP CLINs for

O&M. Will the CLIN structure be revised?

AWIPS is an established program and the Government is confident there is enough information in the AWIPS

Technical Library (accessible at https://vlab.ncep.noaa.gov/web/awips-technical-library) to define the Contract Line Items (CLINs) for

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and Communications as Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP). Further, all standard programmatics (program management, contract/subcontract management, configuration management, etc.) will be performed on a fixed pricebasis.

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question

CQA10.

Please comment on the CLIN structure. Can O&M be priced in terms of Labor

Hours or Level of Effort?

Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Contract Line Items

(CLINs) are Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), with the exception of those activities that, in the Government’s sole discretion, are considered bona fide design changes.

CQA11.

The proposed CLIN structure would mean a high level of risk for the selected vendor. Vendor states that in order to mitigate risk it would need to implement a solution that implies a high level of control, which might not be achieved with the proposed subcontracting plan.

Offeror Subcontracting Plans are required, and will be evaluated as specified in SECTION M of the solicitation.

Offerors shall address the extent to which their plans identify, commit to the use of, and demonstrate achievement of the Department of Commerce’s Fiscal

Year 2015 Small Business and Socio-economic Goals as specified in the solicitation.

CQA12. Vendor suggests formulating a solution with an alternate CLIN structure.

Offerors are required to adhere to the CLIN structure delineated in SECTION B of the solicitation, without deviation.

CQA13.

Please clarify if any extra ODC Plug-ins will be incorporated into the CLIN structure.

A “plug in” for ODCs associated with Product

Improvement will be provided in the Final Request for

Proposal (RFP). A “plug-in” for ODCs for O&M will not be provided.

CQA14. Please comment on O&M for SBN CLIN.

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and all associated costs for Satellite Broadcast Network (SBN) are included in the Contract Line Item (CLIN) for Communications

(COMMs).

NOAA expects responsibility for this portion of the effort to be assumed by a different functional group at some point in the period of performance of the AWIPS contract.

When that transition occurs, no further effort will be required of the AWIPS contractor with respect to the

COMMs CLIN.

CQA15.

During Industry Day, it was stated that on the current AWIPS contract there have been 45 FFP tasks and 1 Cost Reimbursement task. What is driving the re-compete scope of work that would suggest more flexibility is needed (i.e. FFP, This contract will involve the acquisition of both predictable, determinate services (such as Operations and

Maintenance and standard, quantifiable programmatics

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question

T&M, Labor Hours, and Cost Reimbursement tasks)? and data submittals), as well as Product Improvement and continuous enhancement of the AWIPS system.

Recognizing the risk differentials involved in such a broad spectrum of tasks, the Government requires the ability to match the contract type to the complexity and unpredictability of the requirement.

CQA16.

Vendor notes that the sub-CLINS for CLIN 0001 do not include hardware maintenance. Is this an oversight? Refresh is listed. But in L.7.3.1.1 there is no call out for hardware maintenance.

Hardware Maintenance is a normal part of O&M. The

Government requires a solution for providing hardware maintenance, hardware refresh, and logistics support services for all installed AWIPS hardware, to meet

AWIPS operational availability requirements. See Final

Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION L

CQA17.

For all contract years, CLIN 0001AA, Hardware Refresh, is listed as FFP.

Given that that there are a number of different ways for providing equally effective AWIPS solutions to the Government, some of which will evolve over the 6-10 year contract period, vendor requests that the Government change FFP on these CLINs to TBD. Vendor has the same question for classification of the

Communications CLINs (0003, all years), as well.

By definition, hardware refresh under the AWIPS contract will involve only COTS or FOSS solutions. There is therefore no rationale for a contract type other than firm-fixed-price for these CLINs.

CQA18.

Since the unit price for each CLIN may be different each year, vendor recommends that a Sub-CLIN be created for each of the six years. Generally, does NOAA intend to use a numeric designation for each CLIN type and then add/use an alpha designator for each contract year? For example, the following could be the "O&M" Sub-CLIN for six years: 0001AA, 0001AB, 0001AC, 0001AD, 0001AE and 0001AF. Perhaps "Hardware Refresh" and "Software

Maintenance" should have their own numeric CLIN: e.g. make them "0002" and "0003”, not a Sub-CLIN. As is, it is not clear what contract year is associated with, for example, "0001AA."

Suggestion incorporated. Contract Line Item numbers have been changed to be “year specific.” See Request for

Proposal (RFP) SECTION B.4—Contract Line Item

Numbers (CLINs)

CQA19.

There are no CLINs for program management. Should the Offeror price the program PMO within CLIN 1 or allocate it to all CLINS?

Please refer to the CLIN structure defined in the Request for Proposal (RFP). This is a Performance Based

Acquisition. It is up to each Offeror to allocate program management costs as appropriate within its proposal, and to explain its pricing structure in the Price/Cost Volume.

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question

CQA20.

Transition costs may vary considerably among the Offerors. Will the

Government exclude Transition costs from the evaluation to level the playing field among Offerors?

Both the Offeror’s transition (phase-in/phase out) strategies and the associated costs will be evaluated as part of the complete proposal, both for the comprehensiveness of the transition plan, and for its cost-effectiveness. See

Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION B.4—Contract

Line Item Numbers (CLINs).

CQA21.

In order to provide a firm fixed price for system-wide Hardware refreshes, industry would require an extreme amount of detail. Additionally, prices and hardware capability change so frequently that the prices and specifications provided would likely be out of date by time of award.

(a) Could the Government explain the general concept for hardware refreshes as FFP line items?

(b) What level of detail will the Government require for submission?

(c) Will the Government furnish a detailed list of components to be included in refresh cycles along with specifications for each piece of equipment?

(a) Sufficient information concerning hardware refreshes is provided in the AWIPS Technical Library to permit an Offeror to submit a FFP task order for these activities, and since all solutions must be COTS or

FOSS, there is little cost risk involved.

(b) The level of detail will be determined on a case-by-case basis at the task order level.

(c) Please see the AWIPS Technical Library.

CQA22.

What contract type does the Government anticipate CLIN X002 Product

Improvement to be?

The Request for Proposal (RFP) provides a stated level of effort (LOE) and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) that will be used by all Offerors in submitting their offers for this

CLIN. The type of contract for each future task order will be determined and negotiated when Government’s specific requirements are established.

CQA23.

Please confirm CLIN 0004 in the Base Period Year One is to be priced as

Transition Phase-In and that CLIN 2004 in Option Period 2 Year 10 is to be priced as Transition Phase-Out.

See Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION B.4—Contract

Line Item Numbers (CLINs)

CQA24. Does the Government intend to provide the list of Deliverables?

Yes. See Request for Proposal (RFP) Attachment J.3—

Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL).

CQA25.

Will the Government organize the deliverables according to the CLINs to accurately reflect the appropriate cost structure? This action minimizes number of risk items that may be identified during IBR where earned value

Each line item of the AWIPS Contract Data Requirements

List (CDRL) is cross-referenced to the corresponding requirement in the Statement of Objective (SOO).

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question management is required by the contract.

CQA26.

The first sentence reads: “Contractor is responsible for completion, verification, confirmation and communication to the Government of all inspections and test results necessary to substantiate that the products and services furnished under the contract.” Therefore, it appears words are missing. Please clarify.

Correction made to SECTION E.4

“The Contractor is responsible for the completion, verification, confirmation, and communication to the

Government of all inspections and test results necessary to substantiate that the products and services furnished under this contract meet the Government’s requirements and specifications.”

CQA27.

A Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is discussed in DRFP

SECTIONs E.5 and E.7. SECTION L.7.3.1.2, and the SOO SECTION C, page

3 discusses the requirements for a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP). Please clarify if both a QASP and QAP are expected, and if not, which one is the expected document?

The Quality Assurance Plan is expected with the proposal.

The Government will generate a QASP from the successful Offeror’s QAP at the time of contract award.

CQA28. Has QASP been part of the incumbent metrics for performance? Yes.

CQA29.

Please describe how the COR will conduct "inspection" and determine

"acceptance”.

The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) to be generated by the Government from the successful

Offeror’s QAP will be used to manage contractor performance assessment. It will ensure that systematic quality assurance methods are utilized to validate the timeliness, effectiveness, and compliance with the contract requirements of the Contractor’s performance. The QASP details how and when the Government will conduct surveillance, and observe, test, sample, evaluate, and document Contractor performance results, to determine whether the Contractor has met the required standards for each objective.

The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR), supported by the appropriate AWIPS Program Office subject-matter experts, is responsible for the inspection of deliverables and the determination that deliverables are acceptable with respect the requirements of the contract.

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question

CQA30.

Should the period of performance be described as "contract award through six

(6) years, with two 2-year options, for a total of 10 years"?

The base period of performance is from the date of award through six (6) years thereafter.

There are two (2) two (2)-year option periods.

If both option periods are exercised, the entire period of performance of the AWIPS contract will be ten (10) years.

See Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION F.2 Period of

Performance

CQA31.

“The period of performance of this contract is from contract award through six

(6) years with two (2) option years. Will the Government unilaterally exercise the option periods?”

Yes. The exercise of options is by definition unilateral, and will be conducted in accordance with FAR 52.217-9.

CQA32. For pricing purposes, what is the Start Date of the contract (by CLIN) The estimated date of award of August 15, 2016.

CQA33.

Ref SECTION F.3 - F.3 creates an ambiguity not resolved by the Order of precedence clause FAR 52.215-8. Vendor recommends wording like that in

SECTION G.1 & G.2, "Delivery shall be made as set forth in SECTION C unless directed at the Task Order level.

See Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION F.3 Delivery

Schedule, which now reads:

F.3. DELIVERY SCHEDULE

Delivery shall be made in accordance with the specifications set forth in Sections F.4—NOAA

Acquisition Manual (NAM) 1330-52.215-70, Schedule

Of Deliverables, and Section C-Description, Specifications, Work Statement, or as otherwise directed by the Contracting Officer in writing at the Task Order level.

CQA34.

Is it the intent of NOAA to issue a Task Order Proposal Request (TOPR) to be responded to for the first authorized Task Order(s) that initiates Transition and

AWIPS O&M services?

Yes. All work under the AWIPS contract will be authorized by Task Order (TO), based on the Contractor’s written Task Order proposals.

CQA35.

Vendor recommends adding an item for Firm Fixed Price task order CLINs;

stating that monthly invoices will include a fixed monthly rate when the Unit of

Measure is "Months."

See Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION B.4—Contract

Line Item Numbers (CLINs)

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question

CQA36.

Please identify the work on the AWIPS contract associated with a potential organizational conflict of interest. What restrictions would be imposed upon the contractor or contract associated with potential organizational conflict of interest? What AWIPS role(s) are anticipated to be in conflict?

Commerce Acquisition Regulation (CAR) 1352.209-70

Potential Organizational Conflict of Interest, has been removed from the RFP.

CQA37.

H.3 (a) (2) states “The contractor shall perform systems engineering and/or technical direction . . . and supervising their execution by other contractors.”

The Statement Of Objectives does not describe requirements for technical direction or supervising of other contractors. Therefore, it appears H.3 is not applicable to the tasking in the SOO, and it is recommended this clause be removed from the RFP.

The incumbent is responsible solely for direction of its own subcontractors; not for direction of other

(independent) prime contractors under the AWIPS effort.

Therefore, clause H.3—Limitation of Future Contracting

(CAR 1352.209-71, Alt IV, APR 2010), has been deleted.

CQA38.

In SECTION H.8. The Government invokes the Special Works clause. This clause, FAR 27.405-1(a) Special Works, compels the contractor to assign copyright to data produced in the performance of this contract to the

Government. Given the reach of this clause, it is to be used only in limited circumstances. Under the FAR, it is to be used (1) in contracts that are primarily for producing or compiling data for “the Government’s own use”; (2) when

“there is a specific need to limit distribution and use of the data”; or (3) where the Government requires indemnification for liabilities that might arise out of using the data. The FAR includes a comprehensive list of typical special works.

In the Government’s opinion, which circumstance justifies its use for the

AWIPS Recompete?

FAR Subpart 27.405-1 invokes 52.227-17, Rights in Data-

Special Works. Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of the clause, in which the requirement for assignment of copyright is contained.

CQA39.

Does the Government intend to identify key personnel along with specific qualifications? In the interest of fair and open competition, vendor recommends that the Government requests a reasonable number of key personnel be required. Vendor recommendation is for a Program Manager, System Lead

Engineer, Software Architect, Software QA Manager, Operations Manager, &

Communications Manager.

Yes. The Government has identified the following key personnel:

1. Program Manager

2. Deputy Program Manager

3. Mission Assurance Manager

4. Transition Manager

5. Product Improvement Manager

6. Network Control Facility Manager

7. Chief Architecture Engineer

8. Security Officer https://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/current/far/html/52_227.html#wp1143685

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question

See Clause H.3. Commerce Acquisition Regulation (CAR)

1352.237-75—Key Personnel

CQA40.

Ref SECTION H.13 - Vendor recommends deleting this clause. As prescribed in CAR 1339.17 Contract Clauses, CAR 1352.239-70 is inserted in contracts when the "primary" purpose is to purchase new software licenses or renew existing licenses. That is not the "primary" purpose of AWIPS Recompete.

This clause will apply to any Task Order issued under the

AWIPS contract in which the primary purpose is the purchase of new software licenses, or the renewal of existing ones.

CQA41.

Clause H.14 of the Draft RFP is entitled CAR 1352.228-70 Insurance Coverage

(APR 2010) and the first H.16 Clause is entitled Insurance Coverage. Request that one of these clauses be deleted as they are duplicative.

Duplicate clause deleted. CAR 1352.228-70 – Insurance

Coverage is included at H.2.

CQA42. The DRFP contains two clauses designated "H.16" Numbering discrepancy corrected

CQA43.

Please confirm that "Authorization for Government Paid Travel" only applies to

Cost Reimbursable task orders / CLIN and would not apply to FFP task orders /

CLIN.

Yes. Travel authorizations only apply to Cost

Reimbursable type task orders or travel Contract Line

Items Numbers (CLINs). See Clause H.8—Travel

CQA44.

52.203-16 - As prescribed in FAR 3.1106 Contract Clauses, this clause is to be inserted in contracts where there is a requirement for services by contractor employees that involve performance of acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions for or on behalf of a Federal agency or department. Since such a function is not specifically called out in the SOO, Vendor recommends deleting this clause.

Clause Deleted

CQA45.

Please delete FAR 52.219-6 "Small Business Set Aside." This procurement is not a set aside as prescribed by FAR 19.508.

Clause Deleted

CQA46.

In regards to 52.222-42, it is understood that 5 U.S.C. 5332 (General Schedule -

- white collar) and/or 5 U.S.C. 5341 (Wage Board -- blue collar), as prescribed in FAR 22.1016 -- Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires, are not applicable. Vendor recommends deleting this clause.

Clause Deleted

CQA47.

Please clarify / confirm that extensions do not apply to FFP task orders and associated fixed rates. Further, vendor recommends deleting this clause as this a not a Services Contract and the prevailing wage rates provided by the Secretary of Labor are not applicable.

Clause Deleted

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question

CQA48.

FAR 52.217-9 - Since the contract including all options has a 10-year term, paragraph (c) should be 120 months, not 60 months.

Correction made

CQA49.

Vendor recommends deleting this clause or making it only applicable to Cost

Reimbursable CLINs as prescribed in FAR 22.103-5(b).

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.222-2—

Payment for Overtime Premiums only applies to Cost

Reimbursable task orders

CQA50. How will the Price/Cost be evaluated? See SECTION M of the Final RFP

CQA51.

The RFP is currently issued under a single NAICS Code 541511. In order to adequately cover the scope of the SOO in the DRFP vendor recommends that an additional NAICS code is added so that more qualified small businesses can be utilized to meet the small business/socio economical goals.

No. The NAICS code of the Prime Contract does not flow down to the subcontractors.

CQA52.

C.1 Please delete FAR 52.219-22 "Small Disadvantage Business Status," it has been removed from the FAR and the SECTION is now reserved.

Clause Deleted

CQA53.

FAR 52.227-14 appears twice. Will NOAA use the clause by reference

(SECTION I) or use K.11 and select an Alternate?

Since the clause is in SECTION K, does NOAA want the Offeror to certify the items proposed to be delivered with Limited Rights and/or Restricted Rights?

FAR 52.227-14 is incorporated by reference in section I.

See clause H.21 - H.21 - Special Addendum To FAR

52.227-14, Rights In Data—General Concerning Free And

Open Source Software (Foss) And Transfer Of AWIPS

Source Code To The Government

CQA54.

SECTIONs L& M: Neither of these SECTIONs informs the Offeror of the definition of how the Total Evaluated Price will be determined. Will the total evaluated price be the sum of all CLINs including all option years?

See Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION M. Each

CLIN’s total amount will be calculated by multiplying the

CLIN quantity by the contractor inputted unit price to determine the total amount per CLIN.

All proposed burdens (including profit or fee) are to be included in the CLIN amounts.

Pricing per Ordering Period will be determined by the aggregate of all of the CLINs’ total amounts for that

Ordering Period.

Total evaluated pricing will be determined by the aggregate of all Ordering Periods.

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question

CQA55. Please comment on the Source Selection Process to be used.

The Source Selection Process to be used will be Best

Value, Trade-off as defined by FAR 15.101-1. Please see

SECTION M of the solicitation.

CQA56. Will there be an opportunity for a site survey?

No. Potential Offerors are advised not to contact NOAA

AWIPS sites directly for such purposes. All communications concerning AWIPS facilities must be addressed to the Contracting Officer.

CQA57.

Will Offerors be allowed to submit technical reference materials to support the

Technical solution? e.g., brochures, spec sheets, O&M manuals, etc.

See Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION L, clause L.6, CAR 1352.215-70—PROPOSAL PREPARATION (APR

2010)

CQA58.

Will FAR 52.215-20 "Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data

Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data" be deleted since this is a competitive procurement?

No. If NOAA issues a cost type task order that exceeds the cost and pricing data threshold identified in FAR Subpart

15.403-4—Requiring certified cost or pricing data (10

U.S.C. 2306a and 41 U.S.C. chapter 35), which is currently $700,000, certification maybe required.

CQA59.

Please comment on any guidelines for format, number of pages and delivery of proposals (electronic vs. hard copy).

Refer to Request for Proposal SECTION L.

CQA60.

The Draft RFP states: “Offerors shall also be given an opportunity to present their proposed solutions in Oral presentations.”

Vendor Request that the Government furnish the requirements and evaluation plan for the oral presentations. Vendor also requests that the government allow

Offerors to deliver their slide decks on presentation day. This alleviates resource conflicts by not requiring Offerors to complete slide decks at the same time as the proposal. Staggered delivery will benefit the government by resulting in better presentations slides that fully represent the proposed solution.

Oral Presentations have been removed from the Final

Request for Proposal

CQA61. Will there be a mechanism to submit classified past performance?

No. Please redact all classified information from such past performance references prior to submitting it.

CQA62. Will relevant experience and Past Performance of a major subcontractor be considered, and therefore a relevant questionnaire may be provided as part of

The Government intends to consider the past performance of subcontractors. See Request for Proposal (RFP) http://uscode.house.gov/ http://uscode.house.gov/ http://uscode.house.gov/

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question

Vendor Phase I team response? SECTION L

CQA63. Can Offerors submit an IDIQ task order as a relevant project?

It is up to the discretion of the Offeror to decide what projects to submit, including task orders. The Past

Performance team will then decide whether the projects submitted are relevant, highly relevant, or not relevant.

CQA64.

For the two examples of cost savings for customers, can these be for contracts/customers other than the 3 programs cited for Past Performance?

See Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION L

CQA65. Please explain the evaluation process for Past Performance. Please refer to SECTION M of the final RFP.

CQA66.

Draft RFP SECTION L.6.1 Factor 1: Past Performance describes similar project in terms of size. Does the 19M include Hardware and Software renewals or just labor?

The requirement is for projects similar in terms of both size and scope. Please see the final RFP.

CQA67.

Please comment on PMO requirements. Is the current size the right size for this effort?

This is a Performance Based Acquisition. NOAA will not direct or limit the use of any particular technology or solution, IAW FAR 37.603 (b). Industry is required to formulate (and populate) its own innovative solutions to allow NOAA to meet its mission objectives, in accordance with the SOO.

CQA68.

Ref SECTION L.6 Phase I Capabilities Statements Material Instructions, “The

Offeror shall also provide a soft copy of the proposal using electronic media in

MS Word, Excel, and PowerPoint format, as appropriate, on CD-ROM.”

Vendor requests the Government add Adobe Acrobat/PDF format to this media format list. Also applies to RFP numbered Page 96, L.7 Phase 2 Proposal

Revision Instructions, as well.

Yes. Soft Copies can be submitted in Adobe Acrobat/PDF format. See Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION L.

CQA69.

Ref SECTION L.6 Phase I Capabilities Statements Material Instructions, the

Government specifies that Tab 2, Conceptual and Technical Approach

SECTION, is limited to 25 pages. Prospective contractors are responding to a significant breadth of requirements in the RFP and the SOO, and may be using exhibits or tables, both of which can present information more effectively, but may take up more document space than text. Even with a high-level approach, the Government needs to receive proposals at a sufficiently detailed level (yet

The Government has considered the Offerors’ page length concerns and has increased the page counts accordingly.

See Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION L.

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question with legible font sizes on exhibits/tables) that allow effective evaluation of and separation of viable from non-viable Offerors. Vendor requests that the

Government expand the length of this SECTION to at least 50 and possibly 75 pages

CQA70.

Ref SECTION L.6.1 Factor 1: Past Performance - As the small business participation goals (40%) are significant, will the Government consider relaxing the “up to three contract efforts of similar size” restriction to ensure their participation and value is accurately evaluated within the Offeror’s response?

Please refer to SECTION L of the final RFP. The requirement is for past or current contracts similar in size and scope, which includes technical complexity and the breadth of the requirement (in terms of such considerations as the number and distribution of critical stakeholders).

CQA71.

The draft RFP as currently written would significantly minimize the opportunity for mid-size businesses to participate which many government personnel have acknowledged provide the best value to the government. The high past performance bar NOAA is setting probably can only be met by large businesses whereas NOAA is setting an abnormally high small business goal of

40%. There are two ways NOAA could fix this,

1) use NAICS code 541712 that sets the size standard by employee count rather than revenue, or

2) reduce the small business goal to something more standard for an opportunity of this size and complexity like 25%. Would NOAA be willing to consider this change?

1) No. The NAICS code of the Prime Contract does not flow down to the subcontractors.

2) No. Small Business Subcontracting goals are set by the Department of Commerce.

CQA72.

Ref SECTION L.6.2 Factor 2: Conceptual and Technical Approach- The Draft

RFP states, “Describe your network monitoring and control. The requirement is ambiguous. Should it read, “Describe your approach to network monitoring and control?”

See Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION L.

CQA73.

Ref L.6.1 Factor 1: Past Performance - M.2 CAR 1352.215-75 Evaluation

Criteria (APR 2010) The Past Performance evaluation criteria are discussed in

SECTION M.2 Does each proposed relevant project/program have to address all SOO requirements, or can the SOO requirements be evaluated across all provided relevant projects/programs?

Offerors’ past performance will be evaluated based on its relevance in terms of size and scope to the overall AWIPS requirement. Please see the final Request for Proposal

(RFP)

CQA74. Ref L.6.1 Factor 1: Past Performance Experience in Cost Savings - “The examples are not limited to information provided in response to any other area Please see the final Request for Proposal (RFP)

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question of the Phase 1 capabilities statement. However, the examples should tie into the past performance data referenced.” For the 2 examples of cost savings for customers, can these be for contracts/ customers other than the 3 programs cited for past performance? (First sentence implies the 2 examples for cost savings do not have to be the same programs; the second makes vendor question that interpretation.)

CQA75.

Ref L.6 and L.7, Proposal Instructions - To ease in the Government’s evaluation of proposals, it may be necessary to use 11 x 17 pages to display certain tables, charts and graphics. Would the Government please allow the use of 11 x 17 pages?

Yes, as long as the conditions in Final Request for

Proposal SECTION L are met

CQA76.

Ref L.6 and L.7, Proposal Instructions –

(1) What is the duration of the planned transition period?

(2) When will the Transition-Out Plan from current contract be available?

(3) What is the period of performance and

(4) definition of the transition activity for the incumbent contractor?

(1). The Government anticipates three (3) months for the transition period.

(2). Offerors are required to identify their own transition

Phase-In requirements, and prepare their own Phase-

In transition plans, per paragraph 4.1.11 of the

Statement of Objectives (SOO).

(3). The period of performance for transition Phase-In is anticipated to be three (3) months from the date of award, which is estimated at August 15, 2016.

(4). The definition of the transition activity for the incumbent contractor is not relevant for the purposes of this solicitation.

CQA77.

The instruction to Offerors reads, “The examples are not limited to information provided in response to any other area of the Phase 1 capabilities statement.

However, the examples should tie into the past performance data referenced.”

Please clarify that the Offeror may include but is not limited to the three relevant projects cited pursuant to the “Relevant Projects” instruction in L.6.1

(pp. 94-95) when providing instances of cost savings.

Please see Final Request for Proposal (RFP), SECTION L.

CQA78. How will the SB goals be enforced?

The Government does not “enforce” small business goals per se. However, the Contractor is required to report small business goals (and the level of their achievement) in the

Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS), and

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question negative outcomes will be considered in future

Government past performance evaluations.

If the Contractor’s subcontracting goals are not met, the

Government will work with the Contractor to develop a plan to meet these goals going forward.

CQA79. What are the plans for Small Business Participation? See Final Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION L

CQA80.

Can Large Businesses use an established and approved corporate small business subcontracting plan to fulfill a portion of the 40% small business requirement in the Draft RFP?

The small business goal applies to the actual performance of the AWIPS contract, not to the Offeror’s subcontracting plan per se. Where there is a significant negative discrepancy between the plan and its execution, the

Contractor’s participation in future acquisitions may be jeopardized.

CQA81. Does NOAA plan to revise the SB subcontracting goals to include EDWOSB? No.

CQA82.

In the DRAFT RFP Paragraph L.7.3.1.5 Factor 3: Price Cost, first bullet Price

Realism, what guideline is used to determine “price realism?” Since there are facilities located throughout the CONUS & beyond and measurable differences exist in burden rates between large companies and small businesses, those variables would appear to make it difficult to determine “price realism.”

See Final Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION M

CQA83.

Ref SECTION L.7.3.1.2 Management Solution – Earned Value Management

Plan. As EVM is costly to implement, can contractors propose alternate mechanism for contract performance?

No.

CQA84. Ref L.7.3.1.2 How is the Transition for Incumbent being evaluated?

NOAA will evaluate the incumbent’s phase-in plan the same as all other phase-in plans proposed by other

Offerors.

CQA85.

RFP SECTION L.7.2 PHASE 2 PROPOSAL REVISIONS, “All proposal revisions shall be submitted as change pages to the hard copy, accompanied by a complete electronic resubmission of the affected file(s). Each change page shall be identified by date, by revision number, and by corresponding page number. New/changed information shall be identified by a vertical line in the margin next to the change and/or by using redline and strikeout features. Hard copy change pages shall be submitted on light colored (e.g., light blue, yellow, pink) paper. Subsequent change pages/responses, if any, shall be on

Please see the Final Request for Proposal SECTION L.

These requirements are significantly modified therein.

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question different color paper to readily identify the current changes/corrections.”

Prospective contractors will be submitting a total of 22 separate hard copies of Technical and Cost Volumes to the Government, presumably for distribution to a number of people in different organizations and locations. From a document configuration management perspective, it will be challenging to get even one set of complete change pages (much less multiple sets) from each vendor to every single recipient and ensure that the change pages are correctly applied to each volume for each vendor and obsolete pages removed from all volumes, even with a resubmitted electronic file to reference. This could lead to a situation where different people within the Government are evaluating different versions of the same proposal (some correct, some not) from a particular vendor.

• Vendor requests that the Government specify that Phase 2 Proposal Revisions will be delivered in electronic format only. Change page marking instructions can remain the same (“Each change page shall be identified by date, by revision number, and by corresponding page number. New/changed information shall be identified by a vertical line in the margin next to the change and/or by using redline and strikeout features.”).

• Vendor requests that the Government requires resubmittal of the entire electronic proposal package at the time of revision, rather than just changed volumes, to facilitate management and distribution of current and complete sets of proposal packages. This can help ensure that all Government personnel reviewing each version of the proposal from every vendor are evaluating complete and current versions of all packages.

• Vendor requests that the Government allows submittal of revised proposal packages in electronic form via email, rather than requiring physical CD ROM disk delivery, allowing contractors to respond to Government questions more quickly, and the

Government to be able to distribute complete packages for evaluation more quickly and easily.

CQA86.

Ref SECTION L.7.3.1.6 Factor 4: Subcontracting / Socioeconomics Goals -

Will the Government clarify if the socio-economic percentages are applicable to the Sub-contracting Plan or the total contract value?

The Small Business Subcontracting goal for this requirement is based on the total contract value

CQA87.

L.7.3.1.1 FACTOR 1: Technical Solution/ Draft SOO, C.1 Overview / C.3.1

AWIPS Program Objectives “…The Offerors should recommend solutions that provide continuous identification and implementation of cost saving measures, especially the reduction of O&M cost over the life of the contract…” “NWS is anticipating a best-value procurement, emphasizing a stable cost environment while maintaining or reducing the amount of risk to the AWIPS program.”

“Establish a stable (uniform/consistent) cost model that sustains high quality

O&M services while introducing new technology, and capabilities to support

Please see the responses to questions CQA1 and CQA2, above. Offerors are encouraged to find proactive ways to contain and reduce costs wherever feasible (without degrading the quality of service), through innovative solutions and continuous improvement of the efficiency of the AWIPS system. Any savings achieved will be reinvested in that objective.

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question evolving NWS needs and requirements.”

The Draft RFP references both Cost Stability and Cost Reduction in multiple

SECTIONs within the draft RFP and draft SOO. Will the Government provide explanation of their vision of each?

CQA88.

L.7.3.1.4 Volume II: Explanations and Exceptions - SECTION L.7.3.1.4 of the

RFP notes that the requirements are to satisfy objective (a) of the SOO in

SECTION C.4.1 AWIPS Program Objective.

However, SECTION C.4 of the SOO is Period of Performance and no

SECTION C.4.1 exists. Will the Government provide requirements for Cost

Control Mechanisms and Cost Savings Methodologies?

See Statement of Objectives (SOO) SECTION 4.1.

CQA89.

Ref SECTION L.7.3.1.2 - For the Offerors’ Key Personnel, will resumes be outside of the prescribed page count for the Resource Management Plan in

Factor 2: Management Solution?

See Final Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION L

CQA90.

What weight does the Oral Presentation have on the overall technical score?

Please comment on Management Score.

Oral Presentations have been removed from the Final

Request for Proposal

CQA91.

When does the Government anticipate holding Oral presentations? If after

Phase II proposal submission, how long after? Please confirm the due date is the same for all Offerors’ Oral Presentations. Please provide the evaluation criteria for Oral Presentations.

Oral Presentations have been removed from the Final

Request for Proposal

CQA92.

SECTION L.10.1 Oral Presentations states “At the oral presentation, key personnel that will be assigned to the contract should be present. A maximum of twelve (12) people may be attendance. At a minimum, the Offeror’s Program

Manager should attend and participate in the presentation”.

Is the Government requiring all key personnel to be present? Can non-key personnel supplement the key personnel, up to the 12-person maximum?

Oral Presentations have been removed from the Final

Request for Proposal

CQA93.

Will the evaluation factors be evaluated equally or, is there some weighting scheme to be assigned?

The evaluation factors are in descending order of importance.

Factor 1—Technical Solution

Factor 2—Management Solution

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question

Factor 3—Past Performance

Factor 4— Small Business Subcontracting Plan and

Socioeconomic Goals

Factor 5—Price/Cost (evaluated, but not scored)

See Final Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION M

CQA94.

SECTION M.2 Phase 1 "Past Performance Factor is more important than

Conceptual and Technical Approach" Industry Day slides stated they are of equal importance. Please clarify.

See Final Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION M.

CQA95.

Will the Government provide an explanation for how all the non-price evaluation factors can be combined and determined to be of greater value than cost without scoring the Price/Cost Volume? Based on statement (a), the combined non-price evaluation factors could be interpreted to be worth 51% of the total evaluation and the Cost Volume the remaining 49%. As this could be a significant factor, Vendor organization would like a definitive understanding of how the evaluation will be performed without scoring cost

The Offerors’ Price/Cost proposals will be evaluated, but not be scored. See Final Request for Proposal (RFP)

SECTION M.

CQA96.

The Draft RFP states, “If any Offeror does not have a history of relevant past performance, or if past performance information is not available, the Offeror will receive a neutral past performance rating; however, an Offeror without a history of relevant experience may receive a lowered rating for the corporate experience evaluation factor.” Is the reference to “corporate experience evaluation factor” the same as Factor 4: Past Performance?

See Final Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION M. The terminology has been corrected: there is no “corporate experience” factor.

CQA97.

The Draft RFP states, “Evaluation of the Phase 2 proposals will focus on the

Non-Price Evaluation Factors technical solution, socioeconomic/subcontract acting plan, past performance in addition to price.” Would the Government consider changing the Subcontracting/Socioeconomic Goals to a pass/fail item?

Phased proposals are no longer required in the final

Request for Proposal, and subcontracting/socioeconomic goals will be evaluated as stipulated in SECTION M.

CQA98.

Please confirm the evaluation for Past Performance is based on a Relevancy rating and a Performance Confidence Assessment, where Relevancy is scored as Not Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, Relevant or Very Relevant and

Confidence Assessments are scored as Unknown Confidence (Neutral), No

Confidence, Limited Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence or Substantial

Confidence. [For example, only projects of weather operations scope are rated

See Final Request for Proposal (RFP) SECTION M

Number Industry Question NOAA Response to Industry Question as Very Relevant, and their performance noted in CPARS/PPIRS would support the determination of its Confidence Assessment rating.]

CQA99.

There is inherent risk in evolving a system. In order to ensure that the

Contractor continues to maintain 24/7/365 Operations while achieving evolution requires a balanced approach to risk. Accordingly, would the

Government consider establishing evaluation criteria in SECTION M to score the Offeror's proposal and execution risk?

The Government has adopted an adjectival rating scheme for the purposes of this best value/tradeoff procurement.

As identified in detail in SECTION M of the final Request for Proposal, however, risk will certainly be a consideration in the evaluation process.