SSPARS_Draft_RFP_and_Industry_Day_Comments_-_ROUND_1.pdf

FA2517-15-R-8001 SSPARS Draft RFP and Industry Day

Questions and Answers Round 1

Question

Draft

PWS/RFP

Para #

QUESTION ANSWER

General Is the current effort being executed also called SSPARS? Yes.

General Was the current effort a single award? Yes.

General How long do you expect the proposal turnaround to be after the release of the final RFP?

Expected to be around 45 days.

General Who is the incumbent(s) for the current effort? How long have they been the incumbent?

BAE Systems has been the incumbent since the current contract was awarded in 2006.

General Are there any small business requirements on the current effort? Will these requirements be the same on the follow on SSPARS effort?

The current effort requires a Small Business

Subcontracting Plan, as will the follow-on effort. The small business subcontracting requirements are described in the

RFP.

General Is SSPARS expected to be LPTA, best value, or something else? This effort will use a Technical-Price Tradeoff (TPT) best-value source selection approach, as described in the RFP.

General Will the Government be able to accommodate both in-person and telephone attendees for the one-on-one sessions?

No, one-on-one sessions will be in-person only.

General Are there any type of Subject Matter Expert requirements? All the requirements are detailed in the Performance Work

Statement, available on www.fbo.gov under solicitation number FA2517-15-R-8001.

General Is 100% of the work expected to be at the radar sites, or is there a possibility for work being done at AFSPC or contractor sites?

All of the work is expected to be contained within the radar sites. Any exceptions will be listed in the PWS.

Round 1

Question

Draft

PWS/RFP

Para #

QUESTION ANSWER

General Are you looking for any innovation (for example, developing new tools to improve performance monitoring, etc.), or just simply maintaining the radars using the existing tools/capabilities?

Radar maintenance is largely driven by Technical Orders, but the Government is always interested in hearing innovative ideas.

General Who is the current Govt Program Manager? The Program Manager for the follow-on effort is Laura

McDonough (laura.mcdonough@us.af.mil)

General Do you happen to have an Org Chart of the 21SW / 21st Operations

Group?

This will be included in the Industry Day briefing slides.

General Are any radar upgrades to the SSPARS assets expected during the period of performance?

A schedule of planned and potential upgrades will be included in the bidders' library.

General Will the Government be able to accommodate both in-person and telephone attendees for the one-on-one sessions?

No, one-on-one sessions will be in-person only.

General Will the Program Management Office be required to be within a specific mile radius of Peterson AFB

No.

General The draft RFP documents indicate a combination of FFP and CR

Contract types. Is this expected to change for the Final RFP

This is not expected to change.

General Will contractor personnel be able to obtain CAC cards prior to the beginning of phase‐in?

Yes, the winning contractor will be able to obtain CACs after contract award. http://www.cac.mil/common-access-card/getting-your-cac/for-contractors/

General Will the government provide copies of the current collective bargaining agreements in place between the incumbent contractor and collective bargaining units?

Yes, the current CBAs are presently in the Preliminary

Bidders' Library, available on FedBizOpps. Upon release of the Final RFP, the most recent CBAs will be included in the Bidders' Library.

Round 1

Question

Draft

PWS/RFP

Para #

QUESTION ANSWER

General Is it assumed that SCA rates will be required at All Locations? Beale, Clear and Cape Cod are subject to Collective

Bargaining Agreements. Thule and Fylingdales are international sites not subject to SCA.

General Please confirm, the Clear AFS coal fired power plant is no longer in use. That is correct. The coal power plant at Clear AFS is no longer operational. Power for the site is now provided through commercial means and heat is now provided through a newly-constructed steam plant, operated by DoD

Civilians.

General There is no mention of railroad maintenance systems support for Clear

AFS in the Draft PWS. Is railroad maintenance no longer required?

That is correct. With the closure of the coal power plant, there is no longer a requirement for railroad maintenance.

General Will the Contractor be required to maintain a Classified work area at their

Program Management Office

No. The DD254 will be revised accordingly.

General When will the questions and answers and rosters from Industry Day be posted, as some answers prompt other questions?

We will post the Industry Day briefing and the first round of questions the week of October 3rd, immediately after

Industry Day. The second round of questions will be posted no later than 20 October.

Draft RFP

Section B, CLIN

Descriptions

(pp. 2-41)

The FFP CLIN descriptions (i.e. 0106 - 0118) states, "…personnel, supervision, transportation, items and services necessary…" What is the difference between “items” in the FFP CLINs and the Cost Reimbursables

(i.e. 0200) CLINs? Recommend a clearer description or distinction of what is to be priced in these CLINs.

PWS paras 1.1.9 and 1.1.10 explains in detail what shall be included in the FFP CLINs and CR CLINs, respectively.

These paragraph references will be added to the CLIN descriptions to better clarify.

Draft RFP

Section B, CLIN

Descriptions

(pp. 2-41)

The FFP CLIN descriptions (i.e. 0106 - 0118) states, "…personnel, supervision, transportation, items and services necessary…" What is the difference between “transportation” in the FFP CLINs and the "travel" or

"shipping" included in the Cost Reimbursables (i.e. 0200) CLINs?

Recommend a clearer description or distinction of what is to be priced in these CLINs.

PWS paras 1.1.9 and 1.1.10 explains in detail what shall be included in the FFP CLINs and CR CLINs, respectively.

These paragraph references will be added to the CLIN descriptions to better clarify.

Round 1

Question

Draft

PWS/RFP

Para #

QUESTION ANSWER

Draft RFP

Section B, CLIN

Descriptions

(pp. 2-41)

Please clarify under what circumstances the Government will negotiate

Cost and/or FFP IJOs?

It will depend on the nature of work for which the IJO is needed. The large majority of IJOs are expected to have well-defined requirements, and thus be FFP. They will only be negotiated as Cost-type if the requirement or outcome cannot be well-defined.

Draft RFP

Section B, CLIN

Descriptions

(pp. 2-41)

CLINs for Individual Job Orders should state “NSP” (Not Separately

Priced) in Section B.

IAW with Section L-5 D.2.a.5)iv., propose $0.00 on these

CLINs, as they will be subject to separate negotiation as individual jobs arise.

Draft RFP

Section B, CLIN

Descriptions

(pp. 2-41)

Is it correct to assume CLIN (i.e. 0400) Termination Liability does not include the termination liability for the FFP Individual Job Orders since they are unknown.

That is correct.

Draft RFP

Section B, CLIN

Descriptions

(pp. 36-38)

Will the extension of services FFP CLINs be fully funded upon exercise or should they also have a termination liability schedule?

These will be fully funded when exercised, and will not be subject to termination liability.

Draft RFP

Section B, CLIN

Descriptions

(pp. 2-4)

Please confirm the frequency of billing/payment for the phase-in CLINs is monthly at the unit price per month?

That is correct.

Draft RFP

Section B, CLIN

Descriptions

(pp. 2-41)

Please confirm the frequency of billing/payment for the FFP base

(including option) period CLINs is monthly at the unit price per month?

That is correct.

DRAFT RFP

Section G

2.c.ii.1)

(page 51)

The PWS paragraph references do not appear to be correct. Please clarify

The PWS references of 1.1.10 and 2.7.1 are correct. Para

1.1.10 explains what types of items are allowable under the

CR CLIN. Para 2.7.1 reiterates what CE-type parts are allowable under the CR CLIN.

Round 1

Question

Draft

PWS/RFP

Para #

QUESTION ANSWER

DRAFT RFP

Section G

2.c.ii.2)

(page 51)

Since the expenditure of CR funds are already pre-approved, will the

Government consider not requiring receipts with invoices? Contractor financial records are available for review by the Government if requested.

This language will be revised to require receipts only for those purchases over $5,000.00.

Draft RFP

Section G

2.c.v., 2.d.iii, and 3.a.i.

(pp. 51-52)

Since each Offeror’s Disclosure Statements are different, suggest rewording as follows: “General and Administrative (G&A) expenses and/or other applicable indirect cost burdens (when applicable) will be allowed;”

This will be revised to include other indirect cost burdens.

Draft RFP

Section I

52.211-11

DRFP includes FAR 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages – Supplies, Services, or Research and Development. It is not clear how this clause applies to this type of work or how it is intended to be used. Recommend removing this clause

Depending on the nature of Individual Job Orders (IJOs), this clause may be applied.

Draft RFP

Section I

52.211-12

DRFP includes FAR 52.211-12 – Liquidated Damage – Construction. This is not a construction contract. Recommend removing this clause

Some IJOs may be for construction projects.

Section I, 52.222-46

Will an Industry standard Salary Survey be used by the Government in its determination of "Fair Compensation for supported locations"

This contract is not expected to require meaningful numbers of professional employees. This clause will be removed.

Draft RFP

Section I

5352.209-

Clause 5352.209-9000 Organizational Conflict of Interest last paragraph states “…Contractor is precluded for the life of the system from award of a DoD contract to supply the system or any of its major components”.

This lifetime restriction appears to be overly and unnecessarily restrictive.

Recommend revising this clause from “life of the system” to “contract performance period”.

The exact wording of this clause (including its alternates, if applicable) will be determined if and when OCI mitigations are identified and approved.

Draft RFP

Section L-2

252.237-7024

(page 104)

Will Attachment 1, PWS, Continuance of Performance/Mission Essential

Services be provided prior to RFP release?

Attachment 1 is the PWS, and it is currently available on

FedBizOpps. In the PWS, Paragraph 1.1.2 is titled

"Continuance of Performance/Mission Essential Services."

The clause wording will be revised to eliminate confusion.

Round 1

Question

Draft

PWS/RFP

Para #

QUESTION ANSWER

Draft RFP

Section L-3

5352.209-

(page 105)

Page 105 of the draft RFP FA2517-15-R-8001 for SSPARS states: "The

Government may, after discussions with the offeror and consideration of ways to avoid the conflict of interest, insert a special provision in the resulting contract which shall disqualify the offeror from further consideration for award of future contracts, including SMORS or its equivalent." Can the Government please explain the OCI concern? What type of OCI is perceived to exist and with which portions of the work?

The basis for the potential is what is stated in paragraph

(a) of the subject clause, “The SSPARS contractor will be responsible for testing or providing technical evaluations of products delivered from the SENSOR program.

Accordingly: (1) Restrictions are needed to ensure that the

Contractor is not testing or providing technical evaluations on its own products delivered to the SSPARS program.”

Draft RFP

Section L-3

5352.209-

(page 105)

In regards to Contractors Supporting the current SENSOR program…Will an OCI exist for companies that previously supported the SENSOR program but are not currently. If so, what period of time is acceptable for companies that no longer support the SENSOR program?

Previous work on the SENSOR contract is not expected to constitute an OCI. The basic nature of the potential OCI exists because the SSPARS contractor may be in a position to favorably evaluate its own products delivered from the current SENSOR (or future SMORS) contract.

please contact the Contracting Officer for further discussion regarding the nature of the previous work.

Draft RFP

Section L-3

5352.215-

(page 105)

It is stated that a pre-bid proposal meeting will be conducted Mid-2017. Is this still being planned? How will this be different from the Industry Day briefing?

This is still planned. This will be a physical site visit at one or more of the SSPARS sites, to aid offerors in proposal preparation. Details of the site visit will be released with final RFP (or just prior to). Industry Day is to ensure the

Government's requirements are clear and understood in case revisions need to be made before release of the final

RFP.

Draft RFP

Section L-3

5352.215-

(page 105)

Is there any possibility of doing Site Visits prior to RFP release? No, the RFP will be released before the site visit, so the site visit can be seen in context. Enough time will be given after the site visit to develop your proposal.

Draft RFP

Section L-5

A.6.

(page 106)

What other precautions will the Government use to protect its source selection information and the offeror’s proprietary information, such as encryption when transmitting?

Transmission of proprietary data over email is expected to be extremely minimal. If it is required, it will be encrypted, labeled accordingly, and sent only to ".mil" email addresses. Secure file-sharing sites like AMRDEC SAFE may also be used.

Draft RFP

Section L-5

A.9.

(page 107)

Is the Government considering use of the Competitive Range

Determination methodology outlined in DRFP Sec L‐5 A.9?

This will not be known until after receipt and evaluation of initial proposals. But yes, if necessary, the Government reserves the right to make a competitive range determination IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2)

Round 1

Question

Draft

PWS/RFP

Para #

QUESTION ANSWER

Draft RFP

Section L-5

B.1.c.

(page 107)

Can the customer elaborate more of the evaluation criteria for Technical price Trade off? Or are stated of equal importance by a "Trade-off statement" implies one may be more important than another.

Technical and Price are of equal importance (RFP Section

M-3.C.1.). The Government may award to a higher priced offeror if it is determined by the SSA that the superior technical approach outweighs the price difference.

Draft RFP

Section L-5

B.2.a.3)

(page 109)

Technical Volume is limited to 50 pages. Even though the staffing matrix is not included in page count, the 50 page limit seems small given the

PWS includes 83 Pages of requirements. Will the government consider increasing the page limit to 75 pages?

The page limit will be increased to 60, and the small business commitment agreements in subfactor 5 will be exempted from the page count.

Draft RFP

Section L-5

B.2.a.4)

(page 109)

Can the customer confirm page margins (left & right) to be set at 3/4" and

Top & bottom are 1" (representing 7x9)

This is correct. If using Microsoft Word (2013 version), this is the "moderate" Margin setting under "Page Layout."

Draft RFP

Section L-5

B.2.a.5)

(page 109)

Will a specific Font type be specified in the final RFP? Yes, it will be Times New Roman.

Draft RFP

Section L-5

B.2.a.5)

(page 109)

Section L identifies for tables and charts a required font size of 11. Would the government allow a font size of 10 for tables and charts.

No. All font size must be no smaller than 11 point font.

Draft RFP

Section L-5

D.1.b.3)

(page 111)

“Specifically demonstrate your approach to meeting PWS paragraphs

1.1.5 …” PWS paragraph 1.1.5 refers to providing Third Party support to other contractors and government agencies in support of upgrades, projects, and other efforts. Is the government asking how the contractor will communicate intent to enter sub-contract agreements to accomplish these types of tasks or for a description of how such projects will be supported?

PWS paragraph 1.1.5. will be removed from the evaluation criteria for this subfactor.

Draft RFP

Section L-5

D.1.d.1)

(page 111)

On page 111 of the Draft RFP it calls out DPWS Section 2.7.1.41. This paragraph number does not exist in the DPWS. It appears that the correct paragraph number is 2.7.15. Does the government agree with this reading of the DRFP and may we anticipate a correction in the final RFP?

That is correct. The correct PWS reference should be

2.7.15. This will be corrected with the release of the Final

RFP.

Round 1

Question

Draft

PWS/RFP

Para #

QUESTION ANSWER

Draft RFP

Section L-5

D.1.e.

(page 111)

Will the Small Business Breakdown by percentages be provided in the

Final RFP for Small Business Sub-categories (i.e. WOSB = 5%, SDVOSB

= 5%, HubZone=3%..etc)?

No, the subcategory breakdown will be up to the offeror to propose.

Draft RFP

Section L-5

D.1.e.

(page 111)

Is the 20% Small Business Subcontracting a FAR mandated number? No, the percentage was established by the Government through market research.

Draft RFP

Section L-5

D.1.e.

(page 111)

How will the SB plan and SB commitment work, since the Small

Business Subcontracting Plan doesn't have to be submitted until after award?

The Small Business Commitment document will be required with the proposal and the Small Business

Subcontracting Plan will be submitted after the apparent successful offeror is known. The Commitment document will then be incorporated into the Small Business

Subcontracting Plan. The Commitment document is designed to prevent companies from offering small businesses in their proposals, then never actually using those small businesses in the performance of the contract.

Draft RFP

Section L-5

D.2.

(page 111)

The RFP states, "…include a signed copy of the Model Contract, and

Sections A through K, completed as required." Recommend the

Government indicate throughout Sections A – K which items are required to be completed by the Offeror.

This is a general statement, highlighting the expectation of what shall be included in the proposal. Other sections of the RFP specify the exact sections to be filled out (i.e. L-

5.D.2.b.9), Section K clauses)

Draft RFP

Section L-5

D.2.a.4)

(page 112)

When will current CBA information be available to bidders? These are currently included in the preliminary Bidders'

Library and the most recent documents will also be included in the final Bidders' Library.

Draft RFP

Section L-5

D.2.b.4)

(page 113)

If a company has undergone a financial capability audit by DCMA, would a copy of that letter satisfy this requirement?

Yes, such a letter would satisfy this requirement. This language will be updated accordingly.

Draft RFP

Section M-3

B.3.

(page 115)

How will the Government evaluate offeror’s past performance since no past performance is required to be submitted in its proposal?

The Government will review offerors' past performance ratings in the Past Performance Information Retrieval

System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance

Assessments Reports (CPARs)

Round 1

Question

Draft

PWS/RFP

Para #

QUESTION ANSWER

Draft RFP

Section M-3

B.3.

(page 115)

How will the past performance portion of responsibility be determined?

Will the Government look at the cage code?

Yes, based on the CAGE code of the offeror, the

Government will utilize CPARS, PPIRS or any other available means to assess at that company's past performance history. The RFP also includes a section for

"Organizational Structure Change History," under which the offeror shall provide a "roadmap" of the organizational structure, including mergers, divisions, subsidiaries, etc. by

CAGE code. The Government will use this to aid in the assessment of pertinent past performance.

Draft RFP

Section M-3

B.3.

(page 115)

Section L does not contain direction for the submission of past performance information. Can the government confirm that there will be no requirement for submission of past performance in the proposal?

That is correct. Past performance information is not required to be submitted, as it will not be included in the evaluation criteria.

Draft RFP

Section M-3

B.3.

(page 115)

Can the government provide further detail on the how it will determine responsibility IAW M‐3 Evaluation Criteria? Will this this determination be a pass/fail rating or will gradations of responsibility be assigned to each bidder?

In accordance with FAR 9.104-3(b), A prospective contractor that is or recently has been seriously deficient in contract performance shall be presumed to be nonresponsible, unless the contracting officer determines that the circumstances were properly beyond the contractor’s control, or that the contractor has taken appropriate corrective action. Past failure to apply sufficient tenacity and perseverance to perform acceptably is strong evidence of nonresponsibility. Failure to meet the quality requirements of the contract is a significant factor to consider in determining satisfactory performance. The contracting officer shall consider the number of contracts involved and the extent of deficient performance in each contract when making this determination.

Draft RFP

Section M-3

B.3.

(page 115)

Specific key experience is crucial to predict future contract success.

Suggest Past Performance be included as a separate factor evaluation criteria.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii), the Contracting

Officer has determined that past performance will not be a meaningful discriminator for this effort; as such, it will be evaluated as part of the responsibility determination.

Round 1

Question

Draft

PWS/RFP

Para #

QUESTION ANSWER

Draft RFP

Section M-3

C.1.

(page 116)

Technical Subfactor 1, Mission System Maintenance Plan, is scored acceptable or not acceptable (DRFP Sec M‐3.C.2.a). DRFP Sec M‐3.C.1, Relative Importance states Subfactor 1 is the most important of all subfactors. Would the Government consider using a color rating scheme similar to other subfactors to score Subfactor 1 to obtain a more complete assessment and scoring of the proposed Maintenance Plan?

Maintenance of the Mission System is heavily driven by

Technical Orders, and therefore not subject to alternative approaches. Therefore, this subfactor will be evaluated on an "acceptable/unacceptable" basis.

Draft RFP

Section M-3

C.3.

(page 119)

Will price realism be a considered factor in the Best Value evaluation No. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness, affordability, and balance. Price realism will not be conducted.

Draft PWS

1.1.3.

(page 1)

Can the contingency plan include fail-over to another site, or must the plan provide for immediate recover at the site where the catastrophe occurred.

Resources may be brought from another site, but recovery must occur at the failed site.

Draft PWS

1.1.9.

(page 3)

It states that “Consumables (custodial supplies, light bulbs, paper, etc.)

and parts, supplies and materials needed for normal maintenance and in performance of day-to-day contract requirements are included in the fixed price and will not be reimbursed by the Government.” What is the definition of “normal maintenance”? Will the final RFP include a

Government estimate for these items?

Normal maintenance is maintenance done on commercial items or equipment in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations, or that maintenance required to keep the site(s) in normal and safe operating condition, in accordance with PWS requirements. Parts for repair that cannot be foreseen (i.e. due to an unexpected failure) will be reimbursable on the CR CLIN.

Draft PWS

1.1.10.

(page 4)

The paragraph reads, in part, as “The contractor shall be reimbursed for labor hours resulting from approved minor labor surges.” What is the definition of “minor labor surges”?

Minor labor surges could consist of those instances that may require labor above the PWS baseline. For example, unexpected escort support, in-depth technical order review, or support for outside agency projects.

Draft PWS

1.1.12.4.

(page 5)

Will the government provide to the contract all newer revisions to publications or will it be contractors responsibility to obtain them?

It is the contractor's responsibility to stay abreast of all publication revisions and updates and to notify the government in accordance with PWS para 1.1.12.4.

Draft PWS

1.1.17.4.

(page 7)

What are the specific certifications / qualification by job type required? Certifications for certain CE disciplines are required to perform repair/maintenance. Federal, State, and Local laws dictate which crafts and work that require certified crafts persons to perform maintenance and/or repair on specified RP/RPIE. This concept also applies to other functions contained in the PWS, such as Environmental, Information Assurance, etc.

Round 1

Question

Draft

PWS/RFP

Para #

QUESTION ANSWER

Draft PWS

1.1.17.5.1

(page 7)

Draft PWS Sec 1.1.17.5.1 states The Contractor is responsible for providing all vehicles and heavy equipment necessary in performance of contract requirements. Will the Government provide a list of necessary heavy equipment for each site?

It will be up to the contractor to determine what heavy equipment is necessary to meet PWS requirements. The site visits, likely to be held at Clear AFS, AK and Beale

AFB, CA, should be sufficient to determine what heavy equipment is necessary.

Draft PWS

2.1.4.1.

(page 10)

How many real time operational requests should the contractor estimate for their bid?

The number of requests can vary quite a bit from day-to-day. The particular number is not expected to be a cost-driver.

Draft PWS

2.1.4.2.

(page 10)

Calibration reporting. CPCI-2 is a pre UEWR term and not referenced in the PIDS or SRS standards. Recommend removing this referencing for

UEWR radars. The ESD/SCT-0001A is still referenced and should remain for UEWR sites.

The PWS covers both EWR and UEWR radars as the last site won’t be upgraded until FY18 at the earliest.

Draft PWS

2.1.14

(page 15)

SCIF Support. What clearance level is required for personnel maintaining the SCIF?

All personnel requiring unescorted access into the SCIF will require a Top Secret clearance.

Draft PWS

2.4.4.

(page 23)

Does "Establish" mean install? Or something more? The word "establish" will be deleted. Para 2.4.4. will be revised to read, "Manage, issue, receive, store, ship, safeguard, track and maintain Controlled Materiel’s cryptographic and classified communications assets…"

Draft PWS

2.5.4 - 2.5.11, and 2.5.12.1

(pp. 28-31)

PWS Secs 2.5.4 – 2.5.11, and 2.5.12.1. Should section applicability include Beale AFB? Or, is this handled by the host base?

PWS paras were double-checked and Beale section applicability is applied correctly. Beale AFB as the Host

Base handles most of the Environmental requirements but the SSPARS contractor is responsible for complying with

Host base training requirements and policy. See paras

2.5.4.1., 2.5.7., 2.5.7.1., 2.5.7.3., 2.5.12.2 and 2.5.12.4., for instance, which contain contract requirements in support of the Site on Beale AFB in coordination with the Host

Environmental function at Beale AFB.

Round 1

Question

Draft

PWS/RFP

Para #

QUESTION ANSWER

Draft PWS

2.7.1.

(page 38)

Is the contractor responsible for equipment that fails at the end of its’ expected lifespan?

Only if the contractor fails to notify the government through proper programming that a piece of equipment or system is nearing its expected life. The government expects the contractor to ID equipment nearing its life expectancy approximately 3 years out. If equipment was maintained by the contractor as required and the contractor is not at fault for the failure, the government will fund repair or replacement.

Draft PWS

2.7.1.

(page 38)

Is there a history of repairs contractors can obtain access to in order to estimate future work? Recommend the history be provided in the Bidders

Library.

Maintenance Action Sheets (MAS) will be provided in the

Bidder’s library with the final Request for Proposal (RFP).

Draft PWS

2.7.1.

(page 38)

Recommend this work be reimbursed on a cost plus fixed fee or cost reimbursable basis.

All expenses related to routine maintenance for real property shall be included in the fixed price. Parts for unforeseeable repairs will be cost reimbursable.

Draft PWS

2.7.1.

(page 38)

Please define "predictable" and please define "unforeseeable". "Predictable/foreseeable" means all costs related to routine maintenance. For example, to maintain a commercial generator, if the manufacturer's instructions state the oil filters need to be replaced every six months, the number of oil filters needed is predictable and can be foreseen. If an elevator needs annual inspection, the number of inspections, and associated costs based on the offeror's approach, can be predicted and foreseen.

Draft PWS

2.7.1.1.5

(page 40)

Do any of the sites currently have SCIFs? If so, which sites? (PWS Secs

1.1.1, 2.1.14, 2.7.1.1.5)

None of the sites currently have SCIFs. However, all of the sites, with the exception of RAF Fylingdales are expected to have SCIFs by the start of the period of performance for this contract.

Draft PWS

2.7.1.1.5

(page 40)

Will sites currently without SCIFs have them installed? If so, what is the installation schedule?

(PWS Secs 1.1.1, 2.1.14, 2.7.1.1.5)

Yes, all sites, with the exception of RAF Fylingdales, are scheduled to have SCIFs installed, and all are expected to be completed by contract start. If this changes, a schedule will be included in the Bidders' Library with release of the

Final RFP.

Round 1

Question

Draft

PWS/RFP

Para #

QUESTION ANSWER

2.7.1.1.5.

SCIF

Maintenance

When will the current accreditation for the SCIF expire? The SCIFs are currently not yet constructed, but are anticipated to be constructed by contract start. The accreditation lasts for 5 years. The contractor is not required to certify the SCIFs, but to ensure the integrity of the structure is maintained so that the SCIF is “certifiable”.

Draft PWS

2.7.1.14

(page 42)

Does the Contractor have any responsibility for Thule AB power plant operation, maintenance or support (i.e. should PWS Sec 2.7.1.14, 2.7.1.14.1, and 2.7.1.14.2 applicability include Thule)?

No. All RP/RPIE maintenance and repair at Thule is the responsibility of the Base O&M contractor

Draft PWS

2.7.1.14

(page 42)

Would the contractor have to do high voltage repairs and excavation at their cost?

Yes, for the sites at which there is a high voltage requirement, all applicable maintenance and repair costs that can be foreseen/predicated shall be included in the fixed price IAW PWS 1.1.9. and 2.7.1. Unforeseen repairs will be reimbursable IAW PWS 1.1.10. and 2.7.1.

Draft PWS

2.7.13.

(page 51)

Can the Government include SABER information in the bidders library? The Government will provide available SABER-related workload data in the final Bidders' Library.