AFPSL Draft RFP Questions and Responses.docx

Draft RFP Questions – Submitted to CO

Air Force Primary Standards Lab (AFPSL)

The contractor shall maintain all calibration software used in the AFPSL and ensure calibration software complies with the accuracy requirements and test points of the applicable 33K series calibration technical orders. Calibration software consists of all machine language code, templates, data files, and formulas used to perform automated measurement, perform calculations, prepare calibration test result reports, and track historic performance of reference standards or TMDE and as directed by TO 00-20-14.

(CDRL A026, DI-ILSS-80415, Request for Requisition Approval)

In order for the contractor to prepare a reasonable proposal for this contract, we need the following information:

a. List of items calibrated during the last two years by make and model number b.

c. List of on0site equipment calibrated including location

d. Number of trips and manhours spend on on-site calibrations e.

f. List of equipment sent to NIST g.

h. List of equipment sent to other outside vendors for calibration including vendor name and invoiced costs i.

j. List of commercial customers and total number of calibrations and k.

l. List of equipment receiving accredited calibrations.

m.

n. Please include the percentage of calibrations that are accredited in each area.

This will be provided in the Bidder’s Library.

Contractor will be required to staff and supply a shipping department. See raw data estimating number of shipments.

For a 3 company JV:

Lead Company- 4 past performances Company 2- 2 past performances Company 3-2 past performances Or will the joint Venture only be allowed to submit 4 total PPF. It seems to make sense to allow each company the same PPF submission opportunities as any team effort to better understand the overall JV capability.

Each company forming a JV shall submit past performance addressing each company’s four most relevant contracts over the past five years.

Request the Government provide a list of destinations, and number of shipments that are required for this contract. How many will be on GBLs? ON CBLs? Will ITAR be required for Overseas shipments? Will Overseas shipment be on CBLs or GBLs?

ITAR will not be required for overseas shipments.

The majority are paid for by the government directly and the others on a reimbursable basis.

The workload data shows shipments.

Does this contract employ a WD or CBA? If yes, when will this pay schedule data be posted?

Wage determination will be provided with final RFP and the Bidder’s Library

Currently no CFE. All calibration equipment is GFE.

Are the calibrations for the exchange standards included in the projected workload data exhibit 2a?

Will be included in the Bidder’s Library.

Calibrations for exchange standards are included in Exhibit 2A.

How many Contractor Furnished vehicles have been required historically and is the past 2 years vehicle use and cost data available for this contract?

There are currently no CF vehicles.

Will the contractor need to provide their own internet service or just email service?

PWS 4.1.3 will be updated roughly as follows “The contractor shall have all employees obtain AF NIPRNet access and email accounts for use on SDC GFE computers for communications with AFMETCAL, AFPSL, PMEL, and TO customers. Contractor must comply with all government ADPE security requirements.”

NIPRNet – non-classified Internet Protocol Router Network SDC – Standard Desktop Configuration

Does the cost report need to cover the fixed price CLINs as well as the COST CLINS?

PWS 5.1.1.3 will be updated roughly as follows “The contractor shall submit a Cost Performance Report for each CLIN that is cost reimbursable CLIN type for the metrology effort. Efforts that are a fixed type CLIN do not need to be included in this report. (CDRL A010, DI-FNCL-80331A, Funds and Man-hour Expenditure Report)

Boeing maintains the environmental systems.

All costs associated with maintenance is part of the lease, which is cost reimbursable.

Reference CLIN: Lease Costs, subsequent CLINs of same name

Who pays for the utilities? Is this a cost reimbursement CLIN item?

Included in lease cost.

Reference CLIN: Lease Costs, subsequent CLINs of same name

Is LABMET a custom software package developed for AFPSL or is it a commercial package? If custom can the Government provide a description of the software and a user manual. Is the source code available?

LABMET is a custom AFMETCAL-developed software.

Government will provide training for MIS. No manual available

Who maintains the LABMET server? Does the Government provide the Oracle License and Oracle maintenance/subscription contract?

Government maintains the LABMET server. Government provides Oracle license, etc.

Is the Master Table of Contents, which could be numerous pages, excluded from the Executive Summary page count?

Para. 3.1.1 states in part “The tables of contents, tab indexes that contain no information other than section information, and tables of abbreviations, glossaries (as required), are excluded from the total page count.”

Para. 4.1.2 states “Include a master table of contents of the entire proposal”. See Para. 3.1.1.

The PPI Tool and its instructions were not provided with the draft RFP. Would the Government please provide the current tool as soon as possible? With the transition of FBO.gov to SAM.gov, we have been unable to find the latest version of the tool. We'd like to get started on our Past Performance submittal now, since it has been requested early.

PPI Instructions will be included in RFP as an Attachment to Section L.

The "FACTS Sheet" referenced was not provided with the draft RFP. Would the Government please provide this sheet as soon as possible, so that we can be responsive with our past performance submittal?

FACTS Sheet will not be required. PPI tool will be used to provide past performance information.

In addition, we recommend that the government make Technical and Past Performance equal in importance, since the Government intends to evaluate Technical, not simply make it a pass/fail. Evaluation per Technical Ratings on page 3 of Section M.

Section M updated for clarity and will be available in RFP posting. Technical factor is significantly more important than Past Performance and Price. Past performance is more important than Price. Tradeoffs may be made between all three factors.

Table 2.3.2.2 is from Department of Defense standard source selection guidance.

Can the Government provide probable templates that will be used for costing for each of the pricing arrangements?

Contract pricing will be included in Section B. Pricing breakdowns may be included in contractor’s format.

Will certified pricing be required?

Certified Cost or Pricing will not be required. Data other than certified cost or pricing may be required.

Will forward pricing or budgets need to be provided to support G&A and overhead estimates for each option year?

Yes. Should be part of pricing proposal.

Is there a CBA or SCA WD associated with this work?

Wage determination will be provided with final RFP and the Bidder’s Library

Will the incentive fee amount for the development and distribution of calibration technical manuals services and special calibrations-acceptance testing be determined by the USG or proposed by the company?

Incentive fee structure will be provided by the Government in the incentive fee plan.

Does the USG assume that the costs for the development and distribution of calibration technical manuals services, special calibrations acceptance testing, FMS calibration services and external calibration and repair services will include labor hours? If so how will the labor hour rates be provided in the proposal submittal?

Yes, the offerors will determine labor hours. The wage determination will provide minimum labor rates and will be provided with final RFP and the Bidder’s Library.

What workload and services elements of pricing should be included in the fixed price with incentive fee?

Section B will be updated for final RFP release and will include workload distribution by CLIN.

Should Section L, 1.1 Para 2 reads “cost plus incentive fee” instead of “cost plus incentive firm”?

Section L 1.1 Paragraph 2 has been updated

The solicitation states “Tradeoffs will be made only between Past Performance and Price among those offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable.” §M.1.1. However, the evaluation criterion for the Technical factor (§M.2.2) contains a spectrum of 5 adjectival ratings ranging from Unacceptable to Outstanding. Typically, these type of adjectival ratings are not used when a factor is only evaluated on an Acceptable versus Unacceptable basis and when the factor is not considered in the best value trade-off. Will the agency consider revising the Technical criteria to clarify that the Technical factor is not being evaluated only for technical acceptability and including the Technical factor in the best value trade-off?

Section M updated for clarity and will be available in RFP posting. Technical factor is significantly more important than Past Performance and Price. Past performance is more important than Price. Tradeoffs may be made between all three factors.

The solicitation states “Tradeoffs will be made only between Past Performance and Price among those offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable” and also states “Past Performance is significantly more important than Price.” §M.1.1. Given that the incumbent contractor has been performing these services for many years, including only Past Performance in the trade-off and making it "significantly more important than Price" appears to unreasonably favor the incumbent contractor. While the government consider including the Technical factor in the trade-off and/or reducing the importance of Past Performance to make it equal with Price?

Section M updated for clarity and will be available in RFP posting. Technical factor is significantly more important than Past Performance and Price. Past performance is more important than Price. Tradeoffs may be made between all three factors.

Will the current uncertainty budgets and accreditation documentation transfer from the current contract to the new contract and company operating it?

Yes. The accreditation will not.

What CAD programs will be provided for the TO writing aspect of this contract?

Government will provide a CAD program that is to be determined for TO drawings.

Will current uncertainty budgets, accreditation documentation, and any quality data on accredited calibrations since last ISO17025 accreditation transfer from the current contract to the new contract?

Yes. The accreditation will not.

Can the government provide the LabMet user guide?

Government will provide training for MIS. No manual available

Does the government require any email service outside of .mil/NIPR domain?

Not required.

A. Will the government provide more specific workload data?

B. Does the Qty indicate the number of items calibrated?

C. Can the government provide # of outgoing and incoming shipments estimated per year?

D. Are shipping and shipping materials, office supplies and fuel for vehicles including forklift fuel a reimbursable cost E. Is there an aspect of the workload that prevents software/firmware from being loaded on an AF Computer?

F. Does the workload include non-government calibrations/hours?

G. Can the government identify the workload that is associated with non-government calibrations and the average cumulative year to date totals of reimbursements for use of GFE?

A.-B. Five years of raw data will be provided for analysis.

C. If it’s not GFE and locally calibrated, it is shipped out.

D. Incorporated into firm fixed price CLIN.

E. Software can be loaded on AF computers; however, must follow AF policy concerning hardware and software.

F. No.

G. Yes. Will be included in the Bidder’s Library.

Please provide copies of previous maintenance costs/records in order to accurately estimate costs.

Maintenance labor for calibration equipment (excluding RADIAC) is funded in CLIN 2, Calibration Services, and subsequent CLINs of the same name.

Maintenance labor for RADIAC calibration equipment is funded in CLIN 3, RADIAC Calibration Services, and subsequent CLINs of the same name.

Maintenance parts and materials for all calibration equipment and GFV is funded in CLIN 10, Cost Reimbursable Workloads, and subsequent CLINs of the same name.

External repair services for calibration equipment and GFV repaired by a third-party is funded in CLIN 4, External Calibration and Repair Services, and subsequent CLINs of the same name.

RFP Section B descriptions will be updated in final RFP posting.

In order to accurately estimate costs, please provide additional workload data to include locations and a list of equipment with calibration intervals for each location.

Only two on-site calibrations have been scheduled in recent years. Both involved driving the HEL van to either Kirtland or Wright Patterson. Both have been on a 24 month schedule however, there is discussion recently changing both to yearly. Two AFPSL technicians normally go. Average trip time at Kirtland is 10-14 days and 5-7 days at Wright Patterson.

Are Offerors expected to price additional/replacement GFE in their proposal response? Is so, in order to accurately estimate costs, please provide a list of all additional and replacement equipment that has been ordered in the previous years?

No, offerors are not expected to price additional GFE.

Please provide the annual costs of NIST calibrations or labor rate from NIST.

Contractor will schedule calibrations with NIST. NIST calibrations paid directly by government. PWS section 5.1.12 will be clarified

Please provide the annual costs of NOTE 64 calibrations or labor rate from NOTE 64.

Data will be included in Bidder’s Library

Please clarify the workload that NOTE 64 signifies.

Definitions of all Note Codes will be included in the Bidder’s Library.

Please confirm that NOTE 64 is AFB exchange standards and/or ILC measurement processes.

Definitions of all Note Codes will be included in the Bidder’s Library.

Please confirm a plug number will be provided for the facility lease in order to ensure equal competition.

Lease costs will be provided in the final RFP CLIN structure

Please clarify the workload that SPECIAL NIST/ARMY signifies

SPECIAL NIST/ARMY workload is work from NIST and the Army that is calibrated at the AFPSL. For example, lapping/measuring gage block platens.

Please clarify the workload that SPECIAL AFMETCAL signifies

SPECIAL AFMETCAL signifies the contractor hours to manage the N64 workload.

Please clarify the workload that SPECIAL ACCEPTANCE signifies

SPECIAL ACCEPTANCE signifies the contractor hours to conduct the acceptance testing of AFMETCAL procured equipment.

Please clarify the workload that SPECIAL PROJECT PLAN signifies

Support of AFMETCAL Special projects (Ref CLIN 0007) Example, special calibrations, AFMETCAL directed contractor travel and specialized training, training of new AFMETCAL engineers.

Please clarify the workload that SPECIAL FMS signifies

Foreign Military Sales Workload

FMS items sent out are shipped out for calibration or repair from the AFPSL

Request to increase the $2,500 limit to the DoD micro-purchase threshold of $5,000.

No, $2,500 limit is for prior government approval of higher dollar purchases.

4.1.2 – Table of Contents

Paragraph 8.0 states, "Section L attachments listed below are provided as separate files.

Attachment 1: Cross Reference Matrix Attachment 2: Past Performance Information Tool Instructions"

b. FAR 15.404-4 states that it is in the Government’s interest to offer contractors opportunities for financial rewards sufficient to stimulate efficient contract performance, attract the best capabilities of qualified large and small business concerns to Government contracts, and maintain a viable industrial base, as well as utilize fee/profit as a motivator of efficient and effective contract performance. Will the Government consider fee on these activities?

a. External Calibration & Repair Services are included in CLINs of the same name.

b. Fixed price type CLINs will include profit/fee. Cost reimbursable CLINs will not include profit/fee.

b. Fixed price type CLINs will include profit/fee. Cost reimbursable CLINs will not include profit/fee.

b. Fixed price type CLINs will include profit/fee. Cost reimbursable CLINs will not include profit/fee.

N/A

Section L references Attachments that are not included in Section J. Can these Attachment be provided?

a. Section L: A Pricing Matrix is referenced in Comments by Hall, Marcia on 6/20/2019. Beta-SAM and Section J do not include a Pricing Matrix file.

b. Section L: A Cross Reference Matrix is referenced in Section 8.0 of Section L. Beta-SAM and Section J do not include a Cross Reference Matrix file.

Section L Attachments will be included in final RFP release.

a. Pricing Matrix will not be used in this contract. Pricing will be included in Section B.

b. Cross Reference Matrix will be included in final RFP release.

This section includes the language “The contractor shall provide maximum support to Air Force activities…” This seems to be nebulous and subjective. Given that the many of CLINS are firm fixed price, it does not seem reasonable for this language to be part of the PWS as the offeror would not be able to define the workload and estimate the cost. Please define this workload.

PWS has been updated and will be included in final RFP release.

Please provide workload data for “Mission Essential” and “Emergency” designations as described in the Note.

“Mission Essential” and “Emergency” workload data will be included in the Bidder’s Library

Calibrations utilizing 4.1.2 High Energy Laser Cal-Van are included in 2a, maintenance and transporting the van are not included in 2a

Considering the Technical Rating for the proposal is either acceptable or unacceptable, what is the purpose of the color rating and associated adjectival rating systems as it relates to the Technical Volume? This type of evaluation system is for a best value evaluation where the technical rating system has an impact on the award decision other than acceptable or unacceptable.

Please clarify the proposal evaluation process and resulting source selection process. We suggest aligning the proposal evaluation description and process to align with the source selection evaluation process.

Section M updated for clarity and will be available in RFP posting. Technical factor is significantly more important than Past Performance and Price. Past performance is more important than Price. Tradeoffs may be made between all three factors.

Section M is from Department of Defense standard source selection guidance.

Draft_Data_Requirements.pdf, containing the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) is viewable, but can’t be printed.

Will the government provide a copy of this document that can be printed?

PDF security features are disabled and document is printable

It is not clear as to the format for the past performance volume. Are the Consent Authorization Letters (5.2) and Organizational Structure Change History (5.4.2) to be included in the PPI tool?

Please provide guidance as to the structure and the instructions for preparing and submitting Volume III – Past Performance. For example electronic v. printed, any page restrictions, etc.

PPI Instructions will be included in RFP as an Attachment to Section L.

Regarding CLINs 0007, 0007AA and 0007AB (and associated CLINS for period of performance), CLINS AA and AB appear to be sub-CLINS of 0007 yet they are not necessarily related.

Should they be separate CLINS? Also, what is the contract type for Project Plans (CLIN 0007, 0016, etc.)?

CLIN 0007AA will require project plans for training of AFMETCAL employees by the contractor. The majority of the time a government employee spends in the laboratory will be charged to existing work orders, as they will be observing and assisting in calibration setups and data acquisition. This CLIN will allow a marginal charge to the project plans for any technician/engineering time that is spent explicitly training the government employee versus simply explaining work-in-process. Each plan will be pre-negotiated for 416 hours total for a one year period per employee, however, cost will not be 416 technician hours.

CLIN 0007AB will require project plans for specialized training (AFMETCAL directed or requested)

The paragraph that follows L.1.1.B. Support Tasks that begins “The pricing arrangement for this contract…” states the AFPSL Operations CLIN is firm fixed price with an incentive fee. This conflicts with Schedule B which states the Operations of the AFPSL is firm fixed price (i.e. CLIN 0002 and 0003).

Please clarify the pricing arrangement for these CLINs. If there is an incentive fee, will the government provide a plug figure for the fee? Is the offeror required to segregate FFP operations costs and incentive fees on CLINS 0002 and 0003?

CON-IT error, Pricing arrangement for CLINs 0002 and 0003 is FFP w/ Performance Incentive

Incentive plan will be included in final RFP release

Shipping costs are paid directly by the Government. The PWS asks for the most economical method.

RADIAC accreditation will be included in CLIN 0003, RADIAC Calibration Services and subsequent CLINs of same name

There seems to be some ambiguity when looking at the requirements for this area. Table 3.1 - Proposal Organization II-Attach calls it a Technical Manual Production Plan (TMPP).The title of the Subfactor in both Section L & M is Technical Manual Quality Plan and references PWS paragraph 5.2. Technical Exhibit 4, Data Requirements Cross Reference for CDRL A028 indicates PWS references 5.2 33K-Series Cal TOs and 5.2.3, Quality Control. IAW PWS 5.2 & 5.2.3, the technical order quality plan is part of the TMPP.

Does the government want only the quality portion of the TMPP or the entire TMPP that includes the quality plan?

The Government requires the entire TMPP to include the quality plans.

Table 3.1 indicates that there are two portions of Volume II, the volume itself (II) and II – Attach. It is not clear between Table 3.1 and paragraphs 4.2.4-4.2.9, the information that belongs in each. It could be inferred that Subfactors 1 and 2 belong in Vol II and Subfactors 3, 4, & 5 belong in II – Attach. Also, Table 3.1, II – Attach makes reference to a Transition Plan. However, the paragraph reference given is not valid and there’s no other mention of a Transition Plan in Section L or M.

Question: Please clarify the proposal organization and what belongs in each section of Volume II, as well as the requirements for a Transition Plan.

PWS is updated with Transition Plan requirements and will be provided in final RFP release.

Section L Table 3.1 was updated to include PWS reference.

The period that the transition activities (CLIN 0001) cover is the same as the contract performance activity in CLINs 0002-0010. CLINs for both transition activities and the first performance period are 1 Jul 2020 – 31 December 2020.

Did the government intend for the transition period to be the same as the first contract performance period?

The initial transition period will be three months. Then, the awardee will conduct AFPSL operations on their own for the final three months of the calendar year.

Table 3.1 indicates two sections for Volume II - Technical, II and II-Attach. Paragraph 4.2.4 indicates a single volume, outlined with nine sections (including the five Subfactors), with no mention of the II and II-Attach identified in Table 3.1.

Should the technical volume be organized IAW paragraph 4.2.4 as a single volume with five Subfactors or IAW Table 3.1 as a volume (II) with attachments (II-Attach)?

Whichever the government decides, please align Table 3.1 and paragraph 4.2.4 to clarify the Technical Volume organization and where each Subfactor shall be addressed.

Table 3.1 and paragraph 4.2.4 will be aligned appropriately

Assuming the government intends to publish TE-5e AFPSL Measurement Capabilities, each offeror would have the information necessary to develop the information required to populate Section 2 of the MACD for each of the areas. Merely asking the bidders to submit an approach for a single area does not demonstrate a company’s capability to develop Section 2 of a MACD for a primary standards laboratory.

How many AFPSL measurement areas does the government intend each offeror to demonstrate compliance with PWS paragraph 5.1.8.8.1, to include methods used to validate measurement uncertainty and ensure traceability, to record, maintain, and analyze historical data, provide statistical processes and analysis to validate measurement uncertainties, and processes to validate measurement uncertainties against other DoD services and industry.

The Government’s expectation is for the contractor is to provide measurement area assurance in all areas. The purpose of Section L 4.2.9: Subfactor 5 is to demonstrate an overall understanding in order to produce an effective MACD.

The Volume Title Column states, “Transition Plan (as described in paragraph 4.2.2 Sub factor 4)”.

We are unable to find Paragraph 4.2.2, Sub factor 4, as it relates to the Transition Plan in Section L of this RFP.

Please provide either a CDRL for the Transition Plan or specific instruction for the preparation of the Transition Plan document.

Transition plan will be included in Section II – Attachments as part of the technical proposal.

Reference PWS Section 7

We note that the reference to the Funds and Man-Hours Expenditure Report, D1-FNCL-80331 in the draft solicitation is to an expired Data Item Description. The current version is 80331A. This supports to inference that this is a legacy reference.

The DID to which the Tech Exhibit cites (DI-FNCL-80331, superseded by DI-FNCL-80331A) explicitly states that it is not applicable to fixed-price contracts, as shown below. (both 80331A and Tech Exhibit 4 are linked) The Use/Relationship section of 80331A reads:

This report provides Government visibility into contractor expenditures for labor, materials, travel and other contract charges. It tracks these expenditures against baseline values, and provides to-completion estimates.

This Data Item Description (DID) contains format and content preparation instructions for the data product generated by the specific and discrete task requirement as delineated in the contract.

This DID is applicable to time and material, research and development and other contracts where use of Cost Performance Reporting (CPR) or Cost/Schedule Status Reporting (C/SSR) are not appropriate. It is not applicable on fixed-price contracts. It is acquired on a periodic basis.

It is not intended that all the requirements contained herein should be applied to every contract or program phase. Portions of this DID are subject to deletion tailoring depending on the management requirements of the solicitation/contract in which it is applied.

This DID is related to DI-A-5016, Project Planning/Actual Progress Chart (Other than fixed price contracts), and DI-FNCL-80003, Man-Hour Expenditure Chart.

This DID supersede DI-FNCL-80331.

(1) Please eliminate reference to the A010 Funds and Man-Hour Expenditure Report for all fixed price CLINs and clarify the requirement to submit the report for any remaining CLINs.

(2) Please include the current Funds and Man-Hour Expenditure Report with the final solicitation.

PWS 5.1.1.3 will be updated roughly as follows “The contractor shall submit a Cost Performance Report for each CLIN that is cost reimbursable CLIN type for the metrology effort. Efforts that are a fixed type CLIN do not need to be included in this report. (CDRL A010, DI-FNCL-80331A, Funds and Man-hour Expenditure Report)

The format of the report will be at contractor discretion with government approval.

Reference PWS Section 7

Transition is 3 months (1 July 2020 – 30 September 2020). Remaining 3 months contractor is responsible for full operation of the lab.

The CDRLs mentioned in Table 3.1, CDRL A002, CDRL A028, and Section 2 of CDRL A025 are to be delivered as a part of Volume II Attach. However, the DIDs for these, numbered OT-xxxx-xxxxx appear to be tailored for the specific requirements of the AFPSL and are not available on the DLA Assist website. Would the Government please provide them as soon as possible to enable offerors to provide a responsive proposal?

All DiDs were attached with the draft RFP. Some DiDs are tailored to specific AFPSL requirements and will be posted again with the final RFP