GEODSS_Industry_Q A_Round_3.pdf
PDF 82 KB Posted
- Attached to
- REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL for GROUND-BASED ELECTRO-OPTICAL DEEP SPACE SURVEILLANCE (GEODSS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA2517-13-R-8001
About this file
FA2517-13-R-8001 Draft RFP Questions Round 3
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL for GROUND-BASED ELECTRO-OPTICAL DEEP SPACE SURVEILLANCE (GEODSS) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
FA2517-13-R-8001 GEODSS Industry Day
Questions and Answers Round 3
Question
Draft
PWS/RFP
Para #
QUESTION ANSWER
1 RFP Section
L-4 OCI
Do you anticipate/foresee any potential OCI concerns between this
GEODSS O&M contract and the R&D contract (e.g,SENSOR/SMORS)?
If there are any OCI concerns, can you identify where those could occur and what type of mitigation (if any) would be acceptable?
It is incumbent upon the contractor to identify any potential
OCIs that may exist. If the contractor feels an OCI does or may exist, follow the procedures in AFFARS 5352.209-
9001.
2 RFP Section
L D.1.a.
Three distinct past performance citations that include multiple operating locations and management of CBAs are very challenging for small businesses, especially when comparing to the size/scope of the GEODSS contract. Will you ease the three citations from the prime contractors (to two) and find another method to ensure compliance to limitations on subcontracting and CBA/SCA-like labor management?
Market research has indicated this will not be a significant barrier to competition.
3 RFP Section
L D.1.b.(1)
Usually, we see a request to map the past performance of companies to the work allocations in the GEODSS proposals. This ensures proper evaluation of the work a company would perform on GEODSS and its relevance to cited past performance. Do you anticipate adding this requirement?
The Government anticipates including this requirement.
4 RFP Section
M C.1.b.(1)
What is the Government's rationale to limiting recency of past performance to only three years? Given the Government’s intention to open up the competition to a broad set of small business teams, wouldn’t a longer recency period be appropriate?
This will be changed to 6 years.
5 RFP Section
M C.1.b.(1)
To ensure fair competition, we believe the prior GEODSS contract is very relevant and should be included in the recency period for past performance citations. The technology has not changed significantly and expired just over 5 years ago. Can you extend the recency period for
Past Performance citations to be 6 years (vs. 3 years) to allow broader competition?
This will be changed to 6 years.
6 RFP Section
M C.1.b.(2)
Within the past performance relevancy criteria, one of the areas is
“mission system operations and maintenance”. We assume this is broader than optical systems, but need clarification for appropriate contract citations. Can you provide a definition of “mission system” and how broad these systems can be for relevancy?
Mission system operations is not limited to optical sensors.
This will be clarified in the RFP.
7 RFP Section
M C.1.b.(2)
Within the past performance ratings, there is a distinction between a single citation being at a single operating location and multiple operating locations. Can you define operating locations (e.g., two locations across the same town/base, minimum location between site(s)) and if there is increased relevancy for operations at GEODDS site locations
(Socorro/White Sands, Diego Garcia, and Maui)?
The Government’s intent is to evaluate the contractor’s capability to operate and maintain multiple locations without the benefit of immediate reachback capability or cross-utilization among sites. Therefore, across the same town or base would not meet the intent. There is no increased relevancy for the GEODSS sites.
FA2517-13-R-8001 GEODSS Industry Day
Questions and Answers Round 3
Question
Draft
PWS/RFP
Para #
QUESTION ANSWER
8 RFP Section
M C.1.c.
Please specifically define where "Unknown Confidence (Neutral) fits in the hierarchy of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited
Confidence, or No Confidence.
A neutral rating is neither favorable nor unfavorable (see
FAR sect. 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). This rating is to allow companies to compete that do not have a record of past performance. A rating of neutral does not provide a competitive advantage or disadvantage.
9 PWS 2.4.2.4 Can the Government clarify what type of chatroom communications are available at this time on both NIPRNet and SIPRNet?
Currently all operators are required by JSpOC to be logged into a DCO chat room during hours of operations.
10 PWS 4.2.3.2 Please provide systems listed as reportable in REMIS. Please provide additional information about REMIS.
REMIS is an equipment listing that shows which equipment is reportable and assigns it a Standard Reporting
Designator (SRD). For example, FSD-3 is on the listing and is reportable to HHQ. Currently only the FSD-3 is in the REMIS table. If there is equipment that is not on the list a local SRD would be created and it would be tracked locally. REMIS is controlled by the Government.
11 General Please provide GEODSS system architecture diagram(s) including interfaces, technical drawings and documentation mapped to the LRU level.
This information is contained in the T.O.s in the Bidder's
Library.
12 General Do you have a listing of PMEL equipment? Yes, this will be included in the Bidders Library.
13 General Is there any commercial off the shelf software or hardware requiring configuration management or organizational level maintenance?
Not extensive. Antivirus definitions updates, audit log reviews, JAVA updates and some Site Adjustable
Parameters (SAPs).
14 General Can the site visit be scheduled ahead of the final RFP? This will allow more time to respond to the solicitation and address technical questions in advance of the final RFP and issuing amendments.
There are no plans to reschedule the Site Visit. There is an opportunity to submit questions prior to the close of the
RFP.
15 General Will AFI 33-201 Volumes 2, 4 and 9 and AFSSI 4212 be available in the
Bidder's Library?
No. These documents can be viewed by appointment only with 21 SW/PMD representative Mr. Ken Friesz
(kenneth.friesz@us.af.mil or 719-556-4286).
16 General Are software updates done remotely, on site, or combination thereof? Are software updates considered to be organizational or depot support?
All software updates are Depot-level and are usually done on site.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .