Questions_ _Answers_2_10_March_2015.pdf

Questions and Answers #2 (10 March 2015)

FA2823-15-R-3005

1. Is this a follow-on requirement? If so, could you please provide the incumbent contract number for this opportunity? If not, is this a new requirement?

Answer: This is a new requirement to completely replace the outdoor Mass Notification System at Eglin AFB, FL.

2. SOW 1.7.1.3 and RFP: This section calls for proposing an install at site D-51, however only option 1 camp Rudder, and option 2 C-6 are included as option CLINs in the RFP, is an additional option CLIN going to be added?

Answer: The SOW has two paragraphs numbered 1.7.1.3. The paragraph regarding site Site D- 51 is an oversight and should have been removed from the SOW. SOW has been amended.

3. SOW 1.7.1.5.3.11: "..GPS coordinates.." this references the GPS coordinates of individual building MNS systems is the government going to provide coordinates for the existing approximately 135 facilities or is the contractor going to be required to complete that in a survey?

Answer: This is a requirement in UFC 4-021-01. The GPS coordinates should be provided by Eglin. The scope of this contract is not to pay a contractor to identify the GPS coordinates of any building with an indoor MNS.

4. SOW 1.8, 1.9.1: This requirement states a minimum coverage area, is the contractor responsible for providing additional towers beyond those requested in section 1.2 of the SOW to meet an additional coverage area if required?

Answer: The contractor is responsible to evaluate the current GIANT VOICE positions to determine if these positions are necessary in order to provide the desired coverage. The contractor is also responsible to determine if different speaker positions are required to provide the desired coverage. The intent is to provide coverage in the affected areas with the fewest positions. The number of positions required should provide the optimum coverage in the affected area, without excessive overlapping coverage. As stated in paragraph 1.9.1, the number of speaker positions will not exceed the number of speaker positions currently employed.

5. SOW 1.7.3.1 vs 1.7.3.1.1: Multiple contradicting requirements appear to be referenced here.

Under 1.7.3.1 it states system will operate on an assigned VHF frequency however 1.7.3.1.1 and

1.8.5 reference APCO 25 and LMR standards. Is either method acceptable? If the system is capable of it can it also utilize the existing frequency for fire and MNS?

Answer: A correction has been made to paragraph 1.7.3.1. The frequency used by the GIANT VOICE system is an ultra-high frequency (UHF). The GIANT VOICE (Outdoor MNS) will operate on the currently assigned dedicated frequency and it will not use the existing frequency for fire and/or any other MNS.

6. SOW Appendix A: The Pre-Recorded Messages list contains over 35 messages, is it acceptable for some of the Pre-Recorded messages sound files to be programmed at the CCS?

Answer: Pre-recorded messages will be stored at the HPSA, per paragraph 1.7.2.7.2 of the SOW and UFC 4-021-01.

7. SOW Appendix A: Please provide a copy of the verbiage for each of the applicable messages as well as Pre or post tones that may be required

Answer: The exact verbiage for each message will be provided upon award of contract.

8. Is any paperwork needed to be filed out/base access requirements in order to attend the site survey on March 18th?

Answer: Yes. See paragraph 7 (a) of the Addendum to FAR provision 52.212-1 for the required paperwork. The documents are posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website. The documents are titled 1 –PZIOA Memorandum and 2- CAB Affidavit.

9. The SOW states 270 day period of performance (1.13.1) however the Delivery information on the RFP states 180 Days. Please clarify.

Answer: The delivery is 180-days after receipt of award. The SOW has been corrected.

10. Can we take photos?

Answer: Photos of the speaker positions are permitted. Photos will not be permitted of the locations of the control stations.

11. Can we have a site plan showing area to be covered?

Answer: An aerial view of the coverage area is in the SOW (figure 1-4)

12. How large of an area is it?

Answer: See new picture in SOW Figure 1-4

13. Does the system need to cover indoor and outdoor?

Answer: See paragraph 1.7.1.4 in SOW. On-Installation Control. The outdoor MNS will also have the capability to interface with all individual building indoor MNS (currently approximately 135 buildings) and the six wide area controllers (WAC) towers at the 7th Special Forces Group Cantonment area. This contract does not entail connecting to the indoor MNS, only to provide the means, via an interface or a data feed, to the indoor MNS.

14. Do you have an IP phone system and if so which one?

Answer: The phone IP phone system is the Avaya AS5300 Release 3.

15. Would you like a product demonstration?

Answer: A product demonstration is not required.

16. (1.3.6) Para 1.3 does not identify 7 SFG Cantonment Area and Duke Field as Bid Options.

Where specifically are these areas located on a map of Eglin AFB? Should these two areas be removed from this para or added as additional separately priced Bid Options?

Answer: The 7SFG Cantonment Area and Duke Field are not bid options. They have been removed from paragraph 1.3.6/SOW.

17. (1.3.6) this para identifies a requirement to provide the capability to connect remote sites into the Eglin main central control stations. Please clarify that should such connection be required that the MNS at the remote sites would have been furnished and installed as part of the Bid Options on this contract and that the requirement is not to connect an existing remote site MNS (if there is any) to the newly installed MNS?

Answer: The requirement is solely to provide the capability to connect to the remote sites and not to actually connect to the remote site.

18. (1.7.1.3) this para number appears twice. Please clarify the para numbering?

Answer: The SOW has been amended. Please refer to question number 2.

19. (1.7.1.3.1) The last phrase of this para references a central control station for Site D-51, which is not a Bid Option under para 1.3. Should the entire specification/reference to D-51 be deleted or should a separately priced D-51 Bid Option be added?

Answer: It’s been removed from the SOW. Refer to question 2

20. (1.7.1.4) Please clarify the government’s intent of para 1.7.1.4 “…Communications shall be provided between the MNS central control stations and individual building MNS via a data feed from the outdoor MNS…” and “…The outdoor MNS will also have the capability to interface with all individual building indoor MNS (currently approximately 135 buildings) and the six wide area controllers (WAC) towers at the 7th Special Forces Group Cantonment area. This contract does not entail connecting to the indoor MNS, only to provide the means, via an interface or a data feed to the indoor MNS.” and para 1.9.6 “Integrate the MNS with other peripheral systems (i.e. AdHoc, indoor MNSs).” Is the government expecting the contractor to furnish and install a radio (and ancillary equipment) compatible with the new outdoor wide area radio frequency (RF) network at each building and each WAC tower (without actually connecting the outdoor and indoor MNSs)?

Answer: The outdoor MNS CCS will activate the new outdoor MNS system HPSAs and provide a data feed to individual building controllers. Additionally, the CCS will provide a data feed to inject the message into the Navy Alert system and indoor MNSs.

21. (1.7.1.5.3.13) this para makes reference to a primary and redundant communication link.

Para 1.7.31 then indicates that primary communications will be via an assigned fixed very high frequency (VHF). Does the government have a planned or preferred redundant communication link?

Answer: Refer to question 5. SOW has been amended (1.7.3.1.). The frequency used by the GIANT VOICE system is an ultra-high frequency (UHF). The GIANT VOICE (Outdoor MNS) will operate on the currently assigned dedicated frequency and it will not use the existing frequency for fire and/or any other MNS. The Government does not have a requirement for a redundant path. The redundant path is considered to be the second CCU location.

22. (1.7.2.5.1 and 1.9.1) These paras indicate that the MNS is to be installed at locations/positions selected by the 96th Communications Squadron based on contractor recommendations and that all HPSA positions must be approved by the 96th Communications Squadron prior to installation. To enable offerors to develop their Master Schedule, please clarify how long the approval process takes (for planning purposes) once the contractor recommends specific site locations.

Answer: The Eglin approval process for locating new poles could possibly take up to 60 days.

23. (1.9.1) While this para indicates a site survey is to be conducted of the main base Eglin and military family housing, paras 1.8.1 and 1.9.2 make reference to the 33rd Fighter Wing area.

Recommend para 1.9.1 be modified to include the Fighter Wing area?

Answer: Paragraph 1.9.1 has been amended to reflect this recommendation.

24. (Figure 1-4) Does this figure also show the military family housing and 33rd Fighter Wing coverage areas? If not, please provide a coverage area map for either or both of the missing areas?

Answer: Figure 1-4 does show the military family housing area and the 33rd Fighter Wing area.

The illustration has been amended to identify the areas.

25. (1.9.5) Please clarify if the government is requiring the contractor to provide an outdoor wide area network (WAN) design that would enable connection to either or both of the Bid Option central control stations (CCSs) without the need for additional nodes should a subsequent decision be made to connect the nodes (i.e., the CLIN 0001 WAN design ensures line-of-sight to remote CCSs)?

Answer: The contractor is not required to provide a wide area network for the bid options. The requirement for the locations of the two bid options is for a dedicated and independent CCU to be installed at each location.

26. (4.1) please confirm the contractor is only required to identify recommended spares, not to provide the spares? Also, the last sentence of this para indicates spares are to be priced separately as optional items, yet there is no government-provided format or CLIN to do this?

Answer: The contractor is only required to recommend spares.

27. (4.2) this para indicates the contractor is to provide software support offering to be priced separately as an optional item, yet there is no government-provided format or CLIN to do this?

Answer: Software updates/support will be procured as a separate contract/requirement upon completion of warranty/when need/requirement arises

28. (Appendix C, 1.3) PWS 1.3.4 and PWS Appendix C, 1.1 both indicate the contractor is to install two HPSAs at Site C-6. Para 1.3 indicates the contractor is to conduct a site survey to determine how many HPSAs are required to provide adequate coverage of the operational area of the site and recommend placement of the HPSAs. Is the contractor to price the Bid Option 2 CLIN to provide two HPSAs (and one central control station)?

Answer: The contractor is to conduct a site survey and recommend placement of two HPSAs.

The SOW has been amended with the change.

29. (Solicitation, pages 6 and 7) CLINs 0001, 2, and 3 show a delivery date of 180 days ADC. Yet PWS 1.13.1 and 2.1 indicate 270 days after award. Recommend modify the delivery date of each of the three CLINs to align with the PWS delivery date of 270 days after award?

Answer: The delivery is 180-days after receipt of award. The SOW has been corrected.

30. (Solicitation, page 70, Proposal Preparation Instructions, g) [Vol III – Past Performance Information], iv) [Past Performance Information Forms], (1)) This para indicates that Past Performance Information Sheets are to be used to submit recent, relevant, and current performance information for the offeror, predecessor companies, major subcontractors, and teaming or joint venture partners. Yet page 71 of the Solicitation, Proposal Preparation Instructions, g) [Vol III – Past Performance Information], iv) [Past Performance Information Forms], (1) (c) indicates that Performance Information Fact Sheets are to be submitted to demonstrate KP, major subcontractor, teaming, and/or joint venture partners ability to perform the services specified in the Statement of Work. Is a Past Performance Information Sheet to be used to submit KP relevant experience that is to be evaluated as part of the Past Performance factor? If not, does the government have a preferred format, in lieu of the Information Sheet, for KP relevant experience?

Answer: Yes. Past Information Fact Sheets are to be utilized to submit Past Performance Information from all sources.

31. (Solicitation, page 71, Proposal Preparation Instructions, g) [Vol III – Past Performance Information], iv) [Past Performance Information Forms], (1) (c)) Please clarify that a maximum of five Performance Information Fact Sheets may be submitted, with no more than two Fact Sheets for key personnel, major subcontractors, teaming and/or joint venture partners?

Answer: You may submit up to five (5) total references, but you cannot submit more than two (2) references for key personnel, major subcontractors, teaming and/or joint venture partners.

32. (Solicitation, page 71, Proposal Preparation Instructions, g) [Vol III – Past Performance Information], vi) [Key Personnel]): For a current employee of an offeror planned to perform in a key position on the Eglin AFB MNS task, and who has recent and relevant experience while with a previous company, is a letter of consent from the individual required to be submitted with the proposal consenting to release of the individual’s contract past performance information to the prime (who is the individual’s current employer)?

Answer: The intent here is for us to have permission from the proposed Key Personnel to be able to speak with a previous employer regarding their performance on the referenced contract.

33. (Solicitation, page 73, Evaluation of Offers) Volume I (Price/Contracts) is to contain the material quantities, unit prices and other costs proposed for the MNS and Bid Options. Volume II (Technical) is to convey the offeror’s technical approach to meet the performance requirements. Since material quantities appear in Volume I, and the Technical Volume is limited to 15 pages (excluding product literature), will the government permit clearly articulated cross-referencing between all volumes so the offeror does not need to restate significant portions of the proposal in the different page-constrained volumes?

Answer: Offerors may cross reference between volumes as they deem necessary. Offerors are cautioned not to omit required information from any Volume as each Volume is evaluated separately in accordance with the respective evaluation criteria.

34. (Solicitation, page 74, Evaluation of Offers, Volume III – Past Performance, 2.a) When using relevant experiences of Key Personnel (KP) as part of an offeror’s Past Performance factor submission, is the Key Person to fill out the Past Performance Questionnaire or is the Questionnaire to be submitted to the government customer that the work was completed for to fill out as a Personal Experience reference vice company reference? If not, does the government have a preferred format for submission of KP relevant experience that is to be evaluated as part of the Past Performance factor?

Answer: The questionnaire should be completed by the customer.

35. (Past Performance Questionnaire, Section 2, A) Recommend change “Manufacturer of MNS” to read “Name of Contractor”. This enables association of the completed Questionnaire with a contractor. Additionally, the make and model of the MNS is requested in Section 2.H?

Answer: You are correct; this should have stated Name of Contractor. Offerors may make this change on the PPQ form prior to sending to their clients. An official change will not be made as we have already received questionnaires.