Preproposal Conference Minutes 22 Sep 22.pdf

Pre-Proposal Conference Minutes for

Test & Evaluation Technologies for Ranges, Armaments & Spectrum (TETRAS) II

FA248722RA002

I. INTRODUCTION

A Pre-proposal conference was held for subject solicitation on 22 June 2022, 1000 hours, CDT.

The Pre-proposal conference was held virtually via Microsoft TEAMS. The purpose of the Pre-proposal conference (PPC) was to improve understanding of the Government’s requirements, the TETRAS II request for proposal (RFP), and increase efficiency in proposal preparation, proposal evaluation, and contract award.

II. ATTENDEES

Government Attendees:

Contracting Representative Program Representative Support Representative

Ms. Angela Maher Contracting Officer (CO)

Ms. Julie Slezia TETRAS Program Manager (PM)

Ms. Amanda Gosnell, Financial Management

Ms. Donna Chesher Policy Analyst

Ms. May Alejo

TETRAS PM

Ms. Terri Brown Source Selection Advisor

Ms. Lacey McAlister Cost/Price Analyst

Ms. Suzanne Perez

TETRAS PM

Ms. Nola Thomas Technical Advisor

Ms. Sabrina McAlister Cost/Price Analyst

Ms. Mary Jane Anderson, TETRAS Program Manager

Ms. Stephanie Pella Contract Specialist

Ms. Celeste Polucha Contract Specialist

Non-Government Attendees:

Sixty-Five companies attended the conference.

III DISCUSSION

Ms. Angela Maher, Contracting Officer (CO), opened the conference at 10:05 AM, CDT. Ms.

Maher welcomed all attendees and presented an overview of what would be discussed during the conference: Rules of Engagement, Acquisition Team, Acquisition description, Addendum to Section L, Addendum to Section M, and Questions and Answers. Slides presented at the Conference are found at Attachment 2.

Rules of Engagement (Slide 3) Ms. Maher went over Rules of Engagement. Participants were asked to submit their questions via the chat or in writing via an e-mail to the CO. Ms. Maher noted over 100 questions had been received by the PPC and asked companies who had already submitted their questions to please wait for the answers to be posted rather than asking the questions again during the conference.

Ms. Maher stated the Government was working on answering all the questions and that they would be posted to SAM.gov. Ms. Maher stated the PPC was being recorded and hopefully it would be posted to SAM.gov. Ms. Maher caveated that if she was not successful, the recording would not be posted. The recording of the conference will not be posted.

Ms. Maher provided a disclaimer that if there were any inconsistencies between the PPC briefing and the RFP, the RFP would govern (unless amended). If any inconsistencies were found, please let her know.

Acquisition Team (Slide 4) Ms. Maher provided the names of the Acquisition Team and stressed the COs were the only points of contacts for this acquisition. All clarifications, questions and inquiries must be submitted to both COs in writing via the following e-mail addresses: angela.maher@us.af.mil and anthony.saporito.1@us.af.mil.

Acquisition Description (Slides 5-6) Ms. Julie Slezia, TETRAS Program Manager (PM) presented the acquisition basics of TETRAS II. Ms. Slezia stated TETRAS II is intended to be the follow-on contract to the current TETRAS contract. TETRAS II is a near billion-dollar ceiling multiple award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with and an ordering period of five years. TETRAS II is intended to serve as a “gap” contract between TETRAS I and TETRAS III and all requirement work flows through the test community. Ms. Slezia stated they are looking to make sure they could meet any of the technical requirements necessary in any of the technical areas and technology growth areas, which included anything Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Cybersecurity, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C5ISR); all munitions and armaments, weapon systems, airplanes; electronic combat, threats, and cyber work; and finally spectrum improvements, and relocation based on the national broadband plan.

Ms. Slezia presented the kind of work most of the work the TETRAS I primes were currently doing and what can be expected from future primes (Slide 6). Ms. Slezia stated they intended to do full interfacing for systems under test with the range and the range infrastructure. Ms. Slezia stated they constantly needed to get to the leading edge of technologies as systems are being designed and developed in new technology areas. The test community has a significant need to interface with all of that, make sure the Government’s infrastructure meets the need and has the ability to complete testing in those new technology areas. TETRAS II will continue to do that kind of work, whether for new weapon systems, virtual test methods, or new software systems.

They intend to be developing new technologies to support spectrum transitions and that’s platform-to-platform or range-to-range. There is significant movement in telemetry from L-band and S-band toward C-band at this point in time so her customers need that kind of technology level capability. As far as technical readiness, TETRAS II literally takes everything from TRL 3 and moves it all the way up to TRL 8 and sometimes TRL 9.

Addendum to Section L – Instructions to Offerors (Slide 7):

Ms. Maher stated for DOs written off the contract, the period of performance (POP) would vary depending upon the requirement. The types of DOs written would also depend on the requirement. The RFP has three contract line item numbers (CLIN(s)) with an open CLIN structure so delivery orders may be any type from cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF), firm-fixed-price (FFP), firm-fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment (FFP-EPA), so there is a variety and each DO type will be dependent upon the requirement.

Questions were due no later than (NLT) Friday, 24 June, 2022, close of business (COB).

Amendment 0001 extended the due date for questions to 18 July 2022.

Proposals were due NLT 22 July 2022, 2:00 PM CDT electronically via DoD SAFE. This was later extended to 26 September 2022 via Amendment 0002.

Offerors with authenticated DoD CAC may send files without coordination with CO.

Offerors without authenticated DoD CACs shall request a drop-off request at least 5 calendar days prior to submission of their proposal.

Offerors should allow sufficient time to completely submit proposals through DoD SAFE by the proposal due date and time.

The PCO will be available four hours prior to the proposal due date and time to confirm proposals were received. If your company does not receive a receipt notification from the PCO, please email the PCO without your proposal attached that you have not received a receipt proposal notification from the PCO.

Late submittal of proposals may result in disqualification of the offer in accordance with

FAR 15.208

Ms. Maher noted a question was received regarding the notice that DoD SAFE states it is not recommended and that the Proposal Module in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) should be used. However, Ms. Maher thought not all the bugs had been worked out so DoD SAFE will continue to be used unless further notice. Safeguards were built in the process to ensure there was confirmation of receipt when proposals were received.

L-1.2 General Information (Slide 8):

Ms. Maher reviewed General Information as follows:

The proposal acceptance period is 180 calendar days from the proposal submission date.

Offerors must notify the CO of who the Point of Contact is, along with their phone number, and email address of the individual who shall receive Government notices.

Participation by Foreign Firms: In accordance with the National Industry Security

Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), foreign firms or U.S. Companies determined to be under Foreign Ownership Control, or Influence (FOCI) will not be permitted to participate.

Ms. Maher stated a question was received about participation by foreign firms and that it was being researched to provide the best answer. After discussion with both Industrial Security and National Disclosure personnel, it was determined the FOCI procedures focus on specific and known security implementations and are not designed to support an effort like TETRAS where the disclosure and security context is unknown until a requirement is defined. At this time, a foreign contractor with an approved FOCI will not be able to perform as a TETRAS Prime contractor. This answer is included in the RFP Questions and Answers posted to SAM.gov on September 9, 2022.

Additional Clarification Response: The original question asked was if the FOCI process would allow a JV to propose with a non-US partner and the original response was phrased specifically to the implications of a JV with a non-US partner. Under the scenario where a US company and an international company propose as a JV, the original determination stands. This determination is based on disclosure criteria for potential STINFO concerns that cannot be mitigated before RFP information is released to Primes without critical delivery order delays for Government customers. If the US company proposes as a Prime (without a JV with an International company) and they meet JCP and FCL criteria, they are compliant with the TETRAS II RFP criteria. Then on a case-by-case basis, based on known technical criteria for each delivery order they could use an international partner for subcontracted work if approved by the requirements owner, the TETRAS PM, and the CO. This answer was further clarified and posted to SAM on September 22, 2022.

L-1.3 Proposal Organization (Slides 9-10):

Ms. Maher reviewed proposal organization requirements in Volumes I, II, and III, to include sections and their page limits. Reminder was given not to cross reference between the volumes and each volume shall be able to stand on their own and be evaluated on their own. Offerors shall ensure all required documentation is submitted. Amendment 0002 changed the Small Business Subcontracting Plan to Unlimited Pages. Amendment 0003 changed the Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan page limit to 15 pages. Sections 3(v), 3(vii), 3(viii), and 3(ix) of the OCI Mitigation Plan Template may be included as attachments and will not count toward the 15-page limitation.

L-2.4.1 Security Requirements (Slide 11):

Ms. Maher briefed all TETRAS II contractors are required to hold at a minimum a facility clearance level of TOP SECRET with safeguarding at SECRET. Ms. Maher briefed offerors must have the required clearance at the time of award or be eligible to obtain the required clearance requirements. Unfunded sponsorship may be granted. Ms. Slezia added that they will be responding to the security requirement questions and answers (Q&As). Ms. Slezia stated that in TETRAS I, there were several contractors working with DSS to get their clearances and their facility criteria established and essentially were waiting for a sponsor. The Government team and their Industrial Security Office worked with each individual contractor to get their DD254s and their clearances, their DSS clearance approvals, and their CAGE code application assignments completed prior to award. Her team would continue to do that for every vendor on TETRAS II. If companies had not already started the process with DSS, Ms. Slezia highly recommended they do. However, until companies got to fruition on that process for their organization, whatever a company was cleared for at contract award and was on their DD254 was all companies would be allowed to do until they get to a final clearance position

L-2.4.3 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Slide 12):

Ms. Maher presented the requirement to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan and that it applied to other than small businesses. Small businesses do not have to comply with the Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirement. Ms. Maher also reviewed the requirements of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, to include goals.

L-2.4.4 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan (Slides 13-14):

Ms. Maher stated OCI is a big concern on TETRAS II. Offerors shall submit their OCI Plan and identify any existing or potential conflicts and provide a legible, clear, and coherent OCI Mitigation Plan in accordance with the template provided in Attachment 5 to the solicitation.

The offeror’s proposal may be deemed unawardable if the offeror is unable to mitigate an actual or apparent OCI or fails to present a compliant OCI Mitigation Plan. The approved OCI Mitigation plan will be incorporated into the resultant contract and supplemented with each delivery order.

The Government won’t evaluate the OCI Mitigation Plan as part of the technical evaluation; rather the OCI will be reviewed and the CO will determine whether an apparent successful Offeror is awardable in light of OCI concerns, like a responsibility determination or a compliance item.

Clarifications on the OCI Mitigation Plan may be requested from Offerors and does not constitute discussions.

This determination focuses on OCI concerns relating to the Prime Contractor. OCI concerns relating to subcontractors will be primarily addressed as part to the consent to subcontracting process after award.

L-5 Oral Presentations (Slide 15):

Ms. Maher stated Oral Presentations will be discussed in more detail later and went over general oral presentation requirements.

Oral Presentations will begin approximately 14 days after the proposal closing date virtually or within the Eglin AFB area.

Companies are to notify the CO in writing no later than 28 calendar days after release of the RFP (5 July 2022) to request to submit and proposal and provide an oral presentation.

This date was extended to 22 July 22 via Amendment 0001 on 15 July 22. Amendment 0003 changes this date to five days prior to the proposal due date.

Oral presentations would be scheduled based on receipt of request; however, the CO reserves the right to change the order if external events necessitate. Ms. Slezia clarified that her understanding was oral presentations were going to be scheduled in order of receipt of proposal. Ms. Slezia stated the Government still needed to know whether companies were going to propose and intend to schedule the presentations in order of receipt of offer. Ms. Slezia wanted to be clear they were “hanging out the carrot” to help expedite the Government to getting to award. The earlier proposals are submitted, the better because the Government could start working their pricing criteria right away. The incentive is they get their proposal in tomorrow, they will probably be the first to brief.

Ms. Maher stated she will look at the language and amend the solicitation if necessary.

Addition: Amendment 0001 changed the scheduling of oral presentations to in order of receipt of proposals.

Ms. Maher encouraged companies to get their proposals in early as it may get them ahead of the schedule for oral presentations. Ms. Maher also stated one electronic copy of all presentation materials are to be submitted by the proposal due date. No changes to the oral presentation charts/ slides may be made after the proposal is submitted. Oral presentations will be video recorded. Cost/price proposal information shall not be included in oral presentations, the Government strictly wants companies’ technical proposal in their slides.

L-1.6 Discrepancies (Slide 16):

Ms. Maher stated that if there are any discrepancies, to let her know and their rationale as well as any remedies to be considered in relation to the error or omission

L-1.7 Discussions (Slide 16):

Ms. Maher stressed that the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contract (s) WITHOUT discussions except for clarifications so make sure what is submitted is your best, from a price and technical standpoint. DON’T rely on being able to clarify or revise the proposal later. Clarifications, limited exchanges, MAY be conducted where offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain parts of their proposals but not revise them.

L-3.0 VOLUME II – FACTOR I: SOW CAPABILITIES (Slides 17–20) Ms. Maher presented Factor I: SOW Capabilities requirements of Section L. Offerors shall provide a narrative describing their specific approach to fulfilling the technical requirements. Ms.

Maher noted these are instructions and offerors should make sure what they provide to be evaluated in Section M complies with this section. For Project/Program Management, provide your direct capability to perform Project/Program Management and demonstrate processes for accomplishing Project/Program Management in accordance with stated SOW paragraphs.

In addition to providing Project/Program Management capability, offerors shall provide narratives for two of the four technical areas: Design/Redesign, Hardware, Software, and Testing. Ms. Slezia would go over the SOW capabilities in more depth in the Section M discussion.

L-4.0 VOLUME III- FACTOR II: COST/PRICE (Slide 21):

Ms. Maher presented Factor II: Cost/Price requirements of Section L. Ms. Maher requested that companies follow the general instructions. Ms. Maher further reiterated that cost/price information shall not be included in oral presentations.

Addendum to Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award (Slide 22) Ms. Maher stated the basis for award is Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) and that the Government intends to award without discussions, as stated previously.

M-3.0 Factor I Technical Evaluation Criteria - SOW Capabilities (Slide 23):

Ms. Slezia stated Section M breaks down the evaluation criteria down into two primary factors.

The first factor is the Technical Evaluation Criteria or meeting the SOW capabilities. The second factor is going to be the Cost/Price which the Cost/Price team is going to outline how to work through that proposal process. Ms. Slezia stated this part of the briefing was focused on the oral briefing and technical needs in which everything in the technical requirement is in the oral brief. Ms. Slezia stated that it is LPTA and that to remember the Government is trying to build a pool. The Government is asking offerors in their cost rates to propose their worst-case scenario (not their best), so the Government has that data on file throughout the lifecycle of the contract. Ms. Slezia reiterated the Government does intend to award without discussions.

Ms. Slezia stated the factors were Project/Program Management and two of four areas: 1) Design/Redesign; 2) Hardware; 3) Software; and 4) Test. The oral brief shall not be more than 100 pages and companies will have 90 minutes, totally the company’s time, to present their information. Ms. Slezia recommended to follow the order of Section M as that will help the evaluation team as they walk through their checklists as they are in the order of Section M.

There will be follow-on questions so the expectation for briefing day is each company will get 90 minutes to stand up and talk to a blank room as the team checks off their lists without asking any questions. After the briefing, the Government team will convene separately and put together any clarifying questions needed. The company will be brought back to the room, be read the questions, and be given 30 minutes to “phone a friend” if needed and then answer the questions.

The expectation is that there will be two oral briefs a day, one in the morning session and one in the afternoon session. Briefs will be scheduled in order of offer are received as an incentive for companies to submit their proposals closer to now than July 22nd (The proposal due date at that time. Amendment 0002 extended the proposal due date to 26 Sep 2022)

Ms. Slezia then returned to discussing the technical requirements of the RFP (Slide 23). Offers are rated either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” in Project/Program Management and two of the four technical areas: Design/Redesign, Hardware, Software, and Testing.

Addendum to Section M – M-3.1.1 Sub-factor A Program Management (Slide 24):

Ms. Slezia presented requirements for Program Management requirements as identified in Section M-3.1.1 of the RFP. Ms. Slezia noted there were some typos but said not to worry about them, they were not that important, and that companies can still propose to the specific factors.

For Program Management, offerors must present a sound approach to meeting the criteria for 5 critical items, the red items in Section M of the RFP. Ms. Slezia reviewed all five critical items.

Ms. Slezia clarified that for 1(C)(iv), “Manage one or more special handling items” meant one or more, it did not mean to do them all. Hazardous Materials, Explosives, Scientific and Technical Information (STINFO), Classified, etc.) were all areas offerors could show the Government their capability. Offerors didn’t have to show capabilities in every area, just some of the areas for item 1(C)(iv). Ms. Slezia explained they focused hard on program management and the ability to build a team, manage a team, and establish a resource bank up front; in other words, all the key factors in creating a solid proposal that is winnable and executable because that what was needed on TETRAS. Ms. Slezia stated they needed to get to every technology in the world and at some point, someone would ask for something that did not exist today, and they were going to have to figure out how to create it. The ability to honestly evaluate resource needs, lay that out in a proposal, and find the right team to put together for that particular delivery order are very, very critical. Therefore, everybody must show how they do those types of things.

Ms. Slezia identified there were four of 10 non-critical items. Everything not in red in the table in M-3.1.1 Subfactor A was considered non-critical. Ms. Slezia reviewed the non-critical items.

All of the non-critical items were areas offerors can pick from to show the Government their capability and offerors could pick any four of the non-critical items. Offerors could show an example of how they performed in a previous effort or in a previous project or show how they’ve done it for an alternative IDIQ contract where they’ve had to manage multiple delivery orders and multiple subcontractors. Ms. Slezia reminded everyone that the Government was looking to build a pool of contractors and the Government needed the smallest company and the largest company because very small companies were very innovative and very large companies brought a lot of capability and staff to the table. There were going to be situations where the Government would need both size companies, sometimes in the same order and sometimes in different orders.

Ms. Slezia stated she wants offerors to show the Government their strong areas, pick examples that work for their company, and offerors can use one example or 20 examples, its totally up to the offeror.

Addendum to Section M – M-3.1.2 Sub-factor B Design/Redesign Area 1a (Slide 25):

Ms. Slezia presented Design/Redesign requirements as identified in Section M-3.1.2 of the RFP.

Subfactor B, Design/Redesign is broken down into two sub-areas and offerors will only have to pick one or the other. If an offeror decides to do Design/Redesign, they can choose which half they want to present. In other words, for Design/Redesign, they can meet the acceptability criteria in Area 1a OR Area 1b, NOT both. One half focuses on hardware, physical design, and the other half focuses on software, virtual design. The how to put that together and what performance areas offerors want to incorporate can be done multiple ways, for example, an offeror can choose hardware and still show off their capabilities in software for firmware development or software executed. And the same thing for software, offerors can do a full software development and identify how they pulled hardware into the design and incorporated it to meet cyber criteria and other things. Ms. Slezia stated the whole idea behind Section M, especially for technical, is to give offerors the ability to show off their capabilities and strengths anyway they choose (as long as they comply with the required critical and non-critical items in Section M).

Ms. Slezia then the reviewed the requirements for Design/Redesign Area 1a. Present a sound approach for meeting the criteria for the four critical items (red bold font) in Area 1a AND at least 8 non-critical items (black font) in Area 1a. Offerors should:

Show examples from previously completed efforts, can be in any technology as long as it’s tied to Area 1a. Show how the company has done the work in the past.

Highlight exceptional understanding, experience, depth of knowledge, and depth of capability in the different technology areas selected

Pick your strong areas Offer multiple examples. Offer as many different kinds of examples of experience, capability, staffing as you can within the context of this page, which is design/redesign of software type elements.

Addendum to Section M – M-3.1.2 Sub-factor B Design/Redesign Area 1b (Slide 26):

Ms. Slezia stated Area 1b is the other half of Design/Redesign, the “or” half. Ms. Slezia reiterated that the Government is only asking offerors to present the software side, Area 1a, OR the hardware side, Area 1b. For Area 1b, the Government is looking for hardware designs that meet test capabilities for weapons, spectrum or Test Facilities. The process is the same, offerors pick 4 critical items you have to do and then pick 8 of 13 non-critical items that are available in the table. As always, the same information to provide is on every chart:

Show examples from previously completed efforts. The Government wants to understand the company has done this before.

Highlight exceptional understanding, experience, depth of knowledge, and depth of capability in technology areas selected.

Pick your strength areas Offer multiple examples

Ms. Slezia further explained that offerors should show how their company “gets” it, show standards and that the company knows how to comply with the different variations of these kinds of thing. If we’re talking about hardware design and development, there are ieee standards. For the test community, there are RCC standards, ANSI Standards, show the Government the company knows how the standards apply. If your company is trying to show the Government it “gets” the process, it should be able to show the Government those kinds of things. Companies should be able to show the Government they have done this work before, how they’ve done the work before, how they’ve built a team that knows how to do the work. These are the things the Government is looking for.

Addendum to Section M – M-3.1.3 Sub-factor C Hardware Area 2 (Slide 27):

Ms. Slezia reviewed Sub-factor C Hardware Area 2. Ms. Slezia clarified critical item #2 on the slide, “Demonstrate fabricating complex hardware systems for test capabilities in at least one of the following areas…” meant the Government was not asking offerors to show they Government they knew how to do all the areas listed in item #2. The Government was trying to build a pool and hoped to find more than one company that could do these areas so the weight of the entire statement of work did not fall on one company. The statement of work is too broad for only one company to fulfill and the technology areas are too deep. Ms. Slezia identified Hardware Area 2 required 4 critical items and 8 of 18 non-critical items must be met.

Addendum to Section M – M-3.1.4 Sub-factor D Software Area 3 (Slide 28):

Ms. Slezia presented Software Area 3. Five critical items and 6 of 27 non-critical items must be met. Items 1A through E are the basic process of developing and confirming software against any standard. The Government is asking offerors to show they know how to: build software, develop software, and analyze and source solutions. And know how to meet all the RFM criteria. And then there all the subsystems and types of requirements that you can pull from to show you actually know how to do software in the test community, weapons, cyber, electronic warfare, threats environment, i.e., military applications.

Addendum to Section M – M-3.1.5 Sub-factor E Test Areas 4, 4a, and 4b (Slides 29-31):

Ms. Slezia reminded everyone that TETRAS was a TEST contract. When dealing with test, the Government was looking for a little bit more knowledge and areas of understanding. Ms. Slezia stated there were only three critical areas that must be met, and they were about planning, meeting standards, and standards compliance, especially RCC. For the Test effort, there are three tables representing Areas 4, 4a, and 4b. Offerors must meet the criteria for at least three non-critical items from each table, offerors cannot pull all nine non-critical items from one table.

Offerors can choose any three non-critical items from each table and then show their level of understanding and acceptance. There are many levels of technology for each non-critical item and offerors are welcome to demonstrate their broadest capabilities or their most finite capabilities.

Ms. Maher stated that teaming is encouraged, and Ms. Slezia stressed teaming was highly encouraged. The current TETRAS and TETRAS II contracts encourage teaming in every direction. Companies are welcome to team to meet requirements if feel they need to shore up their requirements a little bit stronger for their proposal or oral brief, and teaming partners are welcome to come to the oral brief and brief. During the entire contract process, Ms. Slezia always encouraged teaming and partnering and encouraged prime to subcontractor relationships.

There are no limitations on teaming in the future so contractors can bring in and add members to your team ad hoc as delivery orders come out. Companies can decide who they want on their team for each DO.

Addendum to Section M – Factor II: Cost/Price (Slide 32):

Ms. Lacey McAlister presented Factor II: Cost/Price evaluation and instructions to offerors.

Offerors are instructed to complete the Excel Cost Price Sheet, Attachment 3. Offerors are to propose their rates as their ceiling rates for the first three years of the ordering period: Direct Labor rates, Indirect rates (fringe, overhead, G&A), Profit, and Fee. Offerors are to use the current, most recent rates on the BLS site, which are dated May 2021. The website in the RFP links to the most recent rates. Ms. McAllister also noted that offerors shall escalate all proposed rates to reflect an anticipated start in CY 2023 (January), which is different than what was originally in Section L. Amendment 0001 corrected this info. Amendment 0002 later changed the anticipated start date to after March 2023.

Addendum to Section M – Factor II: Cost/Price (Slide 33):

Ms. McAlister presented Section M-4.1 through M-4.3. The Offeror’s cost/price proposal would not be rated or scored; however, it will be evaluated for: Completeness; Reasonableness; Cost realism (direct labor rates); and overall Total Evaluated Price. Most Probable Cost adjustment is an internal evaluation of the Government where the rates may be looked at to see if they needed to be adjusted upward or downward internally for evaluation purposes only and costs/prices proposed are what will be placed on contract. Ms. McAlister requested everyone to round prices to two decimal places, the hundredth decimal place.

Addendum to Section M – Factor II: Cost/Price (Slide 34):

Ms. McAlister stated there were labor categories in the Excel Cost Price Sheet (Attachment 3) and four levels and corresponding percentiles within each labor category: Level 1 – 10%; Level 2 – 25%; Level 3 – 50% and Senior level – 75%. The OMB SOC goes out to the 90th percentile, however, the Government is looking up to the 75th percentile for direct labor rates. Unrealistic rates will be adjusted for Most Probable Cost for Government evaluation purposes only.

Addendum to Section M – Factor II: Cost/Price (Slide 35):

Ms. McAllister then presented an example of how to complete the Total Evaluated Price on the excel Cost Price sheet/template. The highlighted columns are to be filled in using as an example OMB SOC 21 Engineer, all 17-2199 Levels 1 and 2. Level 2 is the 25th percentile, plug in the yellow columns and the spreadsheet will calculate the totals.

Addendum to Section M – Factor II: Cost/Price (Slide 36):

Ms. McAlister then went over the firm-fixed-price (FFP) portion of the Cost Price sheet to calculate Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Government requested pricing for FFP and cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) because there will be delivery orders of both types. For evaluation purposes, estimated amounts for materials are already inserted into the spreadsheet for each year at $30M, divided in half between the FFP ($15M) and CPFF ($15M) portions. Ms. McAlister stressed that using the materials amounts was for evaluation purposes only. The colored cells were what needed to be filled in (e.g., Material Overhead, Material G&A, FCCOM (if applicable), and profit on labor only).

Addendum to Section M – Factor II: Cost/Price (Slide 37):

Ms. McAlister presented the CPFF portion of the cost Price Sheet. The CPFF portion is very similar to the FFP portion. “Total Annual Price (Total FFP Price + Total CPFF Price)” is calculated at the bottom of the sheet for each of the three years. There is a TAB at the end of the CostPrice Sheet that totals up annual prices for all three years.

L-4.2.2 Estimating System (Slide 38):

Ms. McAlister presented estimating system requirements. The Government is asking offerors to provide a summary description of their estimating system, whether they have deviated from their estimating system, and whether it has been approved. If approved, also provide evidence showing the estimating system has been approved.

L-4.2.3 Purchasing System (Slide 39) Ms. McAlister reviewed purchasing system requirements. Offerors shall provide a description of their purchasing system or methods used, any deviations from their purchasing system, and evidence of approval of their purchasing system.

L-4.2.4 Accounting System (Slide 40):

Ms. McAlister stated a government approved accounting system is required at time of award because there will be cost-plus-fixed fee along with firm-fixed-price delivery orders. Offerors can provide evidence of approval by providing their DCAA audit stating their accounting system is “Adequate.” Ms. McAlister continued reviewing accounting system requirements and requested offerors to not redact anything in their report.

L-4.2.5 Disclosure Statements (Slide 41):

Ms. McAlister reviewed Disclosure Statement requirements. Offerors are to provide a copy of their most recent approved CAS Disclosure Statement, if applicable, and evidence of approval.

L-4.2.6 Financial Capability Review (Slide 41):

Ms. McAlister explained the Government was looking for their point of contact information for their DCMA and DCAA offices. Submit info such as their names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses. Ms. McAlister also requested to make sure that Financial Capability reviews submitted are current and contain current contact information.

Evaluation (Slide 42):

Ms. McAlister stated proposals will be evaluated on an incremental, first-in, first-out basis as they are received and encouraged early submission of proposals.

Questions and Answers (Slide 43):

Ms. Maher opened the floor up to questions and answers. Attachment 1 to these minutes lists all questions and answers discussed during the conference. At the end of the question and answer session, Ms. Slezia noted there were over 184 questions received so far and that her team was working on the answers.

IV CONCLUSION:

Ms. Maher thanked all for attending the conference and the Government looked forward to receiving proposals. The slides for the Pre-proposal conference would be posted to SAM.gov, along with the Questions and Answers. Ms. Slezia requested all participants send an email identifying their company and attendee names. Ms. Slezia also thanked all for attending and looked forward to expanding the TETRAS horizon as far as the number of primes go. The Pre- Proposal Conference ended at 11:32 AM.

ANGELA M. MAHER

Contracting Officer

Attachments:

1. Questions and Answers

2. Pre-proposal Conference Slides

ATTACHMENT 1

QUESTION AND ANSWERS

1. Question: In regards to the SECRET safeguarding portion, that applies as well for the safeguarding of information and equipment? You could still be awarded a seat, but you would not be participating on task orders until that is satisfied?

Answer: We look at every individual delivery order and we will validate the DO requirement against the DD254 and if you are not compliant with the DO you will not be able to propose at the time the Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) is released. If we have a requirement that requires SECRET or maybe TOP SECRET and you don’t have one or both of those requirements, then your company would not be allowed to propose. Ms. Slezia also noted there were requirements that are unclassified and those that have a lower level of security so they will look at every delivery order individually.

2. Question: The 5 July 22 date is the date the RFP is dropping, the final RFP?

Answer: No, the 5 July 22 date is the day companies need to tell the Government they will submit an oral presentation and that they intend to submit a proposal. And then 22 July 22 is the proposal due date of the RFP.

Amendment 0001 extended the date of notification to submit a proposal to 22 July 22 and Amendment 0002 extended the due date for proposals to 26 September 2022.

Amendment 0003 extended the date of notification to submit a proposal to five days prior to the proposal due date.

3. Question: You mentioned a large potential pool on TETRAS II. I believe the current contract IDIQ has about 14 primes. Are you anticipating that twofold, threefold growth for TETRAS II?

Answer: Yes. Even at Industry Day held a year ago, we were anticipating about 40-45ish, and the pool seems to keep growing. The Government is good with that because it means more competition.

4. Question: You talk about a Top Secret Facility clearance and at the time of award if a company has not achieved Top Secret Facility clearance, they would only be able to bid on those DOs for which they have proper clearances. When would a company be required to have their Top Secret Facility clearance?

Answer: The expectation is even prior to award; companies should be working toward it. The Government will sponsor the clearance and will not pay to give a company a Top Secret Facility clearance.

5. Question: Do you foresee that requirement (Top Secret Facility clearance) excluding small businesses from being able to compete in this RFP?

Answer: Not at all. The Government is not excluding anybody because it will sponsor companies. If they don’t have the clearance now, Ms. Slezia recommended they get started working with DSS now. Ms. Slezia’s team will bring in their Industrial Security to work directly with DSS and try to expedite their CAGE code application and cleared by contract award. If the clearance is not obtained by contract award, the Government will continue to sponsor a company and update the DD254 as their CAGE code changes.

6. Question: Does it make a difference who has accredited the SCIF? Does it have to be DoD, or could it be the IC?

Answer: Though a SCIF is not required it is a benefit to the Government team. Upon award the TETRAS Program Management Team will work with your company and the Industrial Security Team to support approvals and sponsor for initial accreditation. This is referenced in the Questions and Answers posted to SAM.gov.

7. Question: With respect to the OCI Mitigation Plan, typically mitigation plans are associated with identified potential or actual conflicts that need to be mitigated. If an offeror does not have any identified or actual OCIs, is a mitigation plan still required? And that would be more of a corporate plan or would the OCI Mitigation Plan not be required?

Answer: The OCI Mitigation Plan is required. Recognize that TETRAS Primes will be interfacing with large OEMs like Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman, depending on what systems they are working on. The OCI Mitigation Plan has a twofold requirement. First, to establish procedures to ensure at the delivery order level you don’t have OCIs for each DO since we don’t know the requirement until it comes out. The Government will be asking contractors to run their OCI Mitigation Plan for each delivery order submission package. Typically, that is a corporate process. Second, to establish processes in place that support proprietary data management in order to ensure that OEMS are comfortable working with you. If there are no OCI Mitigation Plans in place, this will be hard to do.

8. Question: Brief in the order of Section M. Would you rather us do that than group all the critical requirements up front in our slide decks?

Answer: Yes, we would prefer you follow directly through Section M. You can group the critical items in each area, like in Area 1 do all the critical and then non-critical items. And then in Area 2 do all the critical and non-critical items. What we wouldn’t want to see is all the critical items of Areas 1,2,3 and 4 and then all the non-critical items. We’d like to group them in the technology areas: Design/Redesign, Software, Hardware, and Test.

9. Question: Each volume shall contain a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms used. For Volume II, which is power point, would you like us to submit a separate word document file that contains a table of all the abbreviations and acronyms for Volume II?

Answer: Please provide a glossary of acronyms and abbreviations at the beginning of the briefing. L-1.4 states the cover page, table of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, and cross-reference matrix are excluded from the page count limitations. This response was provided in the Questions and Answers posted to SAM.gov.

10. Question: It looks like Cost/Price is listed as Volume IV. I think there are only three volumes and Cost/Price is Volume III around slide 20 in the slide deck.

Answer: Slide 21 of the Pre-proposal Conference slides was corrected to read Volume III.

11. Question: Can you identify a specific month and calendar year you would like us to escalate our proposed rates to?

Answer: Start with January 2023. Amendment 0002 of the RFP, Section L-4.3.2 changed this date to March 2023.

12. Question: Relative to Joint Ventures and the DD2345 in the security clearance. The language in the RFP states only the JV will have privy of contract so will the DD2345 have to be submitted in the name of the JV of the fact that both JV partners have documentation of that nature, will that be allowed to be submitted?

Answer: A DD2345 in the name of the Joint Venture is required. This response was provided in the Questions and Answers #187 posted to SAM.gov.

13. Question: Are you guys accepting the recent changes to Joint Venture security requirements that if both parties have a Top Secret clearance, that the JV itself would be considered to have the required clearance?

Answer: The JV must be submitted for a FCL if it does not possess one to the level required for the contract. DCSA will then determine the process from there. AFMC HQ is aware of the NDAA language which is in direct conflict with policy and is still awaiting updated policy guidance. Until clarification is received from OUSD(I&S) on processing FCLs for JV entities, the Command will follow current DoD policy in that the JV is submitted for FCL.

In the scenario listed, if the contract is to be awarded to the JV, the JV facility clearance is required regardless of the companies that make up the JV are already cleared. DCS will then provide guidance to that JV entity one which companies, if not all, must have a FCL or must be excluded. DCSA should also be providing guidance on subcontracting procedures to the entities that make up the JV (See Question and Answers #188 posted to SAM.gov).

14. Question: For the oral presentation team for the company, is there a limitation on the number of folks that can be there for the presentation?

Answer: We are asking companies to cap their team at 10 people.

15. Question: If a particular delivery order requires SCI, how is that handled with the DD254?

Answer: The DD254 provided with the base contract award includes SCI, non-SCI, SAP, COMSEC, NATO (you can check box 10 of the DD254). Everyone’s delivery orders are managed at the contract level DD254 and then each individual delivery order will have a security section that spells out the specifics for that DO, which will all be equal or less than the DD254.

16. Question: Volume I, in Section II, Contract Documentation, the RFP specifies you want us to submit sections A-K in that section, Section K being the certs and reps, and then in section 4 you have another section on representations and certifications, which again sounds like Section K.

Are you asking for the same thing twice or are you expecting something different for reps and certs for Section IV?

Answer: Only one copy of Representations and Certifications is required. Provide Representations and Certifications in Volume I Section IV as indicated in Section L Table L-1.3.

(This response is found in Questions #36 and #236 of the Questions and Answers posted to SAM.gov).

17. Question: (Reference Slide 21) You mentioned not to redact anything. When we send certified cost and pricing data, with employees’ salaries, it typically has PII information. Are you saying not to redact that PII?

Answer: No. PII is not being requested, do not submit PII.

18. Question: On page 34, the guidance regarding salary percentiles is to use the OMB SOC data that is available on the BLS website. What if we use other salary service data from within our organization as we feel this is a better indicator of DL? Is it acceptable to use our salary service data at the same levels prescribed by the guidance on page 34 of the RFP?

Answer: Yes, the Government is not asking to change how to come up with salary. The Government is letting you know the Government will be using the Bureau of Labor of Statistics wages to determine what the market rate is. If you deviate from that, just provide supporting information about what you used so the Government can track that and make sure the labor categories are cross matrixed to what is applicable on the excel spreadsheet.

19. Question: If we have multiple overhead rate pools, should we use the rate pools we expect to use, an average rate or our highest rate?

Answer: The highest rate. The Government is requesting the worst case scenario. Make sure to justify the rate in the cost narrative.

20. Question: Would you please repeat what contract types will be used for the DOs?

Answer: The Government will use a wide range of contract types, depending on the requirement.

TETRAS II will have a broad range of requirements so the DOs will range from firm-fixed price (FFP), fixed-price with Economic Price Adjustment (FP-EPA), fixed price incentive (FPI), cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF), cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF), cost reimbursable (CR), and even cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) in limited cases. The most commonly used delivery order type is CPFF, with a few FFP. It depended on the requirement.

Ms. Slezia further clarified: Every time we get a new requirement with a new requirements owner, part of the process of developing their paperwork is to go through the acquisition strategy. Part of the process is evaluating what risks are out there and how our contract can support the mitigation of risks as much as possible. That evaluation process leads to the kind of contract type we recommend and then we put it into the FOPR to let contractors to know what to bid to. If contractors feel the need to modify or come back and ask if we were sure to go FFP, we are always open to understanding why a different contract type might be a better fit.

21. Question: Will pre-award DCAA audits will be conducted for new vendors?

Answer: A DCAA pre-award survey will be conducted.

22. Question: Could you explain how you would work with small business vendors who do not have a DCAA approved accounting system?

Answer: The Government will walk through contractors the DCAA accounting approval process. The Government is not sure how long it would take to get an accounting system approved and in order to promote competition, this requirement may be removed from the RFP.

However, a contractor will only be eligible for award of FFP type delivery orders until their cost accounting system has been approved or determined “adequate” by DCAA. The requirement for a government approved accounting system prior to award was removed from the RFP via Amendment 0001.

23. Question: As a small business, who should we contact for FCL sponsorship?

Answer: Right now, contact the CO that you would like that support. The CO will let Ms. Slezia know once they receive your offer so that we can support you. In the meantime, if you have not already started the process, recommend you take a copy of the RFP DD254 and walk it to your nearest DSS, your standard DSS agent, and notify them that you need to get started on preparing for their audit and approval process so that you can get your CAGE and FCL going for contract award.

24. Question: Since teammates have different capabilities which may cover unique and niche capes, salary rates are much higher than BLS. Will capturing the development of rates in the cost narratives support the review from a realism standpoint?

Answer: Yes. If you deviate from the BLS, justify why and let the Government know how you developed them and why they are higher than the market rate.

25. Question: When the folks submit their email to Angela, could they please state whether they are willing to share their name with the other participants in the spirit of looking for potential teammates.

Answer: It is not possible to list the names of the company participants.