Q A - 11 Jun 12

AISS II Questions and Answers Q1: Information to Offerors (ITO) and Instructions for Proposal Preparation; Section 1.2, Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits; “The volumes identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders, as necessary.” For clarification, does this mean that you require each copy of each volume to be bound separately in a three-ringed binder?

A1: Yes, each copy of each volume must be in its own separate three-ringed binder.

Q2: Information to Offerors (ITO) and Instructions for Proposal Preparation; Section 3.2.4 Subfactor One – Technical Approach; “Required documents for the offeror’s technical approach include a draft quality plan, draft testing plan, and draft training plan.” Are the draft quality, draft testing, and draft training plans included within the 50-page limit for Volume II, or can they be added as attachment?

A2: These documents will not count against the 50-page technical volume limit. They may be added as attachments.

Q3: Information to Offerors (ITO) and Instructions for Proposal Preparation; Section 3.2.5 Subfactor Two – Staffing Approach; “Required documents for the offeror’s staffing approach include a staffing plan and transition plan.” Are the staffing and transition plans included within the 50-page limit for Volume II, or can they be added as attachments?

A3: These documents will not count against the 50-page technical volume limit. They may be added as attachments.

Q4: Information to Offerors (ITO) and Instructions for Proposal Preparation; Section 3.2.6 Subfactor Three – Configuration Management Approach; “Required documents for each offeror’s configuration management approach include a draft configuration management plan and a draft asset management plan.” Are the draft configuration and asset management plans included within the 50-page limit for Volume II, or can they be added as attachments?

A4: These documents will not count against the 50-page technical volume limit. They may be added as attachments.

Q5: Will the government provide the number of FTEs that historically have been housed on-site and off-site?

A5: The government cannot release this information as it is up to each offeror to propose how many individuals they feel is necessary to meet the PWS requirements. As mentioned in the draft Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 paragraph 5.2.6, the government currently has approximately 112 workstations available on Scott AFB for AISS II contractor support; however this number is subject to change. This number DOES NOT constitute the number of bodies required to provide the AISS II services. It is only given as information for offerors to more accurately estimate costs.

Q6: Can the government identify which positions require a Top Secret clearance?

A6: A minimum of one contractor personnel will be required to have a Top Secret clearance to perform tasks related to Level 2 Global Command and Control System (GCCS) System Administration.

Q7: Past Performance Relevancy clarification requested. Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors (ITO) – Commercial Items seems to conflict between two sections. Section 2. Evaluation Factors/2.c Past Performance Factors/2a states that to be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Section 4.3 Relevant/Recent Contracts, states that a contract is considered recent if it is an ongoing contract or if it was completed within four years of the date of issuance of the solicitation.

A7: The correct statement is that the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years.

Q8: Paragraph 6.3.7 of the PWS states that the contractor shall provide the “name” of the System Administrators for the GCCS task. Can the government define whether this is one name or multiple names you are seeking?

A8: The government cannot release this information as it is up to each offeror to propose via their Staffing Approach how many individuals they feel is necessary to perform this PWS task.

Q9: Will the scope of work for this contract require networked data storage solutions?

A9: The AISS II scope of work will cover the engineering, fielding, and sustainment of storage solutions.

Q10: When is the RFP expected to be released?

A10: The formal RFP is expected to be released between 10 and 18 May 2012.

Q11: Who is the incumbent contractor and what is the current contract number?

A11: The current contractor is Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC). The contract number is FA4452-09-D-0004.

Q12: (In regards to the ACFP Industry Day power point presentation) How many people are in the PMO?

A12: As far as the PMO staff, they were illustrated on the chart in the provided briefing. There is one government employee. It is up to each specific contractor to staff the appropriate number of contractor personnel for their appropriate contract.

Q13: (In regards to the ACFP Industry Day power point presentation) What is the nature of the interfaces to ACFP, i.e. frequency, size?

A13: (1) ACFP’s interface with DAFIF is via a DVD published by National Geospatial-intelligence Agency (NGA). The data size is roughly in the ‘small’ 1-2 gigabytes. We receive that data once every 28 days.

(2) We get an approximately 600MB Weather (Wx) file via a secure file transfer mechanism every six hours from the Air Force Weather Agency (AFWA). This is about as current as we can get as it does take some time for global Wx models to run to produce the data that we, and other AFWA customers, need.

(3) We have an interface with the Portable Flight Planning Software (PFPS) for visualizing the ACFP flight plan – that is in the ‘high’ kilobytes range and is provided in the standard Common Route Definition (CRD) format.

(4) Our interface with GDSS is via services, and is in the ‘small’ megabyte range for each flight plan. We supply more data to GDSS, such as individual ‘point’ data. This is the same as for the Mobility Enterprises Information Service (MEIS).

Q14: (In regards to the ACFP Industry Day power point presentation) Is ACFP due to be replaced?

A14: ACFP has always been due to be replaced. Currently, there is an ongoing effort to potentially replace ACFP with the Mobility Air Forces (MAF) Automated Flight Planning Service (MAFPS); however, that is a separate acquisition that we aren’t at liberty to discuss at this time.

Q15: What tools is the government using for each program (ACFP, CAMPS, COINS, GATES, GCCS, GDSS, SI, and EIM) to fulfill the PWS requirements for configuration management and asset management?

A15: There are multiple government tools currently being used: Unicenter Asset Portfolio Management, Clear Quest, spreadsheets, Altiris, and SharePoint. An enterprise solution would be ideal as the government is always open to better solutions .

Q16: Under key personnel, can the government define what is meant by CPM certification for the Program Manager?

A16: An industry standard Project Management certification; i.e. Project Management Professional (PMP).

Q17: Reference paragraph 2.2.5.6, Engineering/Delivery Process, in the draft PWS dated 29 March 2012. The draft PWS requires the contractor to document in their CMP their government approved process for packaging, storage, handling and delivery of baselines, technical solutions and all supporting documentation/configuration files, testing, fielding, installation plans, diagrams, system operators manuals, and turnover notices (B009, B011, B012, B014, B015, B016). Please clarify this statement as any successor contractor will not have government-approved processes until after the contract is awarded.

A17: A draft CMP is due with proposal and should contain your corporate CMP processes. After contract award, the government will review the submitted draft CMP and make recommendations. After the review is complete and changes agreed upon, the contractor will submit the final CMP which will contain the government approved processes.

Q18: Reference paragraph 2.3.3, Asset Management, page 19, in the draft PWS dated 29 March 2012. Currently, it requires the contractor to “move equipment (approximately twice per week), in the local area (within the 100-mile radius of Scott AFB). A government vehicle will not be provided. The contractor accepts transfer liability when transporting the equipment.” Please clarify if costs for transporting equipment and/or insurance to cover liability are reimbursable under one of the Cost Reimbursable CLINs.

· CLIN 0003 – paragraph 18, 18 Work Breakdown Structure And Performance-Based Management, in the draft PWS.

· CLINs X006 / X007 – paragraph 5.1.2, SF 1449 Continuation Sheet – Price, in the Draft Evaluation Criteria.

A18: The Other Direct Cost (ODC) CLIN X007 will be used for vehicle reimbursement. This is a Cost Reimbursable Not to Exceed CLIN.

Q19: How much time will contractors have to submit proposals?

A19: Contractors will have approximately 30 days after the release of the formal RFP to submit proposals.

Q20: Will the government provide some type of historical workload?

A20: Yes, the Bidders’ Library will display historical workload.

Q21: Reference draft PWS – 29 Mar 12 and Draft Evaluation Criteria provided by the contracting office. Paragraph 6.4.4, Waiver Request, in the PWS states a contractor may submit a waiver to the OCI restriction described in FAR Part 9.5. However, paragraph 5.2.7 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI), in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 (Section L) Draft Evaluation Criteria states the offeror must either state affirmatively it has no OCI issues, or it must submit an Organizational Conflict of Interest Identification and Mitigation Plan (OIMP), as described in PWS paragraph 6.4.1 at the time of submitting a proposal. The Section L instructions seem to conflict with the PWS requirements. Recommend the contracting office remove paragraph 6.4.4, Waiver Request, from the PWS in its entirety. Rationale: The government will gain a thorough understanding of the actual and/or perceived OCI status of every offeror, which is crucial to evaluating risk.

A21: Paragraph 6.4.4, Waiver Request, will be removed from the PWS. As stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 each offeror must either state affirmatively it has no OCI issues, or it must submit an Organizational Conflict of Interest Identification and Mitigation Plan (OIMP).

Q22: Concerning potential OCI issues; would being awarded the AISS II contract preclude the contractor from competing/bidding on the MAF C2, ITV/Business System Programs that are part of AISS II (GDSS, GATES, CAMPS, etc.) in the future?

A22: Winning the AISS II contract will not preclude the contractor from competing on these programs. The contractor will however be required to submit an Organizational Conflict of Interest Identification and Mitigation Plan approved by the government.

Q23: Can the government reveal historical data that offers guidance on overall hours, overall FTEs, and the details of systems or help desk metrics?

A23: The government cannot reveal any data regarding overall hours and overall FTEs. No additional information beyond what was available for viewing at the Bidder’s Library can be released regarding the details of systems or help desk metrics.

Q24: (In regards to the ACFP Industry Day power point presentation) Can the government provide details on what applications servers are being used?

A24: ACFP has recently upgraded its application server from Oracle Enterprise Manager to Oracle’s WebLogic.

Q25: (In regards to the ACFP Industry Day power point presentation) What data is coming from other agencies such as NGA, etc. and how much impact does it have on reports and processing.

A25: a) NGA – DAFIF. This is used for Navaid identification, validation, and use within the construction of a file-able flight plan. For example, airways are identified within DAFIF; a flight plan can request that ACFP generate a flight plan that uses airways. ACFP will select from those airways documented in this cycle's DAFIF to produce a flight plan that uses the optimum set of airways from point of departure to point of arrival.

b) Wx - GFS (Global Forecast System). The Air Force Weather Agency (AFWA) provides ACFP winds/temperature information for the entire globe from surface to sky. This is used in determining the aircraft performance for any point in the atmosphere given the current state of that aircraft (altitude, velocity, weight, etc).

c) PFPS - The purpose of the interface here is primarily to 'visualize' the flight plan route. ACFP has no inherent map graphics, we use those in already produced/tested/fielded product PFPS. ACFP does have another 'services' interface with PFPS. ACFP can 'wind' a flight plan produced in PFPS. PFPS does not have a global Wx database, it is generally used 'stand-alone'; however, a PFPS flight plan can be enhanced by applying the latest forecast Wx data against the flight plan to increase accuracy. This is satisfied by the ACFP 'Winder' Service.

d) GDSS. ACFP sends the optimized routes of flight to GDSS for filing with the aviation authorities. ACFP does not have any capability to file itself.

Q26: During the library review it was noted that several training videos were created in 2011. Will hardware to create future videos be provided to the winning bidder?

A26: All training items were created on Government provided hardware/software and will be turned over to the winning bidder.

Q27: Will this contract require the winning bidder to build and/or edit training videos?

A27: There are CBTs that have embedded video clips that will need to be maintained as releases evolve. Creation of additional CBTs/video clips may be required as training requirements change throughout the life of the contract.

Q28: Will G&A expenses on approved travel be allowed?

A28: Travel reimbursement will be in accordance with para 16.2 in the PWS, "TRAVEL EXPENSE AND OTHER DIRECT COSTS REIMBURSMENT".

Q29: Would the government consider leaving the bidders library open after the RFP is released? This would allow teams to search for additional answers as questions arise.

A29: We will not be leaving the Bidder’s Library open after the RFP is released.

Q30: Would the government consider providing relevant labor hour/staffing historical data?

A30: Relevant labor hour numbers for the current contract would be misleading as a large portion of the current contract is Firm Fixed Priced.

Q31: Can the government provide some type of historical manpower data on exercises supported or surges for contingencies?

A31: The surge for contingencies is new to this PWS and will be pre-approved by the COR on an as-needed bases. Exercise support for the new contract has also changed and the functionality required to support an exercise is exercise dependant. A rough estimate from Exercise Setup to Exercise Teardown is 315 hours.

Q32: Can the government provide any historical data on how much regression testing is required by systems?

A32: CAMPS 75%

GDSS 85%

GATES 25%

ACFP 70%

Q33: Can you please provide a list of the CM tools currently being used by program and in support of the AMO? Do the tools belong to the government? Does each C2 system share the same CM tools or are separate tools being used?

A33: There are multiple tools currently being used: Unicenter Asset Portfolio Management, Clear Quest, spreadsheets, Altiris, SharePoint, and a proprietary database. An enterprise solution would be ideal; the government is always open to better solutions. All tools with the exception of the proprietary database are the property of the Government. The contents of the proprietary database, which are owned by the Government, will be turned over to the contract winner. Where possible AISS uses the same tools, such as inventory tracking across programs, but change request tracking differs from system to system.

Q34: Can the government provide the number of configuration items managed by system?

A34: Not accurately. Most of the items are tracked as a release, not individual elements. A more robust Configuration Management and Asset Management process would be ideal; the government is always open to better solutions.

Q35: Can the government provide the number of Joint Application Development sessions typically supported during the month/quarter/year by system?

A35: JADs are not a common practice however there are numerous JAD type sessions, such as Agile Sprint requirement sessions, PIMMS, Working Groups,…Some are held weekly, some bi-weekly, some monthly and some ad hoc.

Q36: Can the government provide the number of functional and technical use cases typically developed during the year by system?

A36: It depends on the number of requirements/release and their types. These are not use cases, but regression test cases:

CAMPS 20 Average per release

GDSS 57 Average per release since 2.3.0

GATES 74. After the 5.0 test they had to go in and update all 74 test scenarios.

ACFP 400 Average per release

Q37: Can the government please provide a list of the asset management tools currently being used?

A37: The official Government Asset Tracking tool is AIMS. Spreadsheets are still used in some areas. The software tracking is on their access database.

Q38: Can the government reveal the number of physical configuration audits performed in a typical month/quarter/year by system?

A38: Currently PCAs are performed as requested by the system’s PMO. Anytime a test baseline is delivered a physical configuration audit should be done. Additionally a physical configuration audit will be done prior to software fielding. This requirement is spelled out in the PWS.

Q39: Can the government please share the amount of floor space that is required for the local equipment storage facility?

A39: The local equipment storage facility is located on base and provided by the Government.

Q40: Can the government please reveal what automated testing tools are being used currently? Do the tools belong to the government? Do all the C2 systems share the same tools?

A40: The current automated testing tool is IBM Rational. The tools are purchased by the Government. The Government is always open to enterprise solutions. Tool is available for automated testing for all systems.

Q41: Do all documents shown at the library review belong to the government, such as the test procedures which were over 240 pages for one system? Will these documents be available to the winning bidder?

A41: Test procedures are property of the Government and at the discretion of the Government be available to the winning contractor.

Q42: During the industry day the GATES test lab was discussed as being housed at the incumbent contractor facility. Will this hardware/test suite be moved or provided to the winning bidder?

A42: The GATES Government test lab is located at Scott AFB.

Q43: Please provide clarification on the number of years (3 or 4) for the past performance to be considered relevant?

A43: As stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, para 4.3 and Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items, para c. (2) (a) past performance is considered recent within 3 years.

Q44: In reference to: ITO, paragraph 4.3., states, “Past Performance Information Sheets shall consist of no more than six contracts that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort.” Additionally, Paragraph 4.3 states, “If applicable, offerors shall submit information concerning no more than two recent contracts performed by each teaming partner….. Is the prime also restricted to only two PPISs, or if there is only one subcontractor, can the prime submit four and the subcontractor submit two?

A44: As stated in ITO, paragraph 4.3, no more than ten contracts total shall be submitted for each offeror/team. This is includes all teaming partners, subcontractors, etc.

Q45: Please provide a copy of all CDRLs.

A45: CDRLs were posted to FedBizOpps on 31 May 12.

Q46: Para 1.3 of the ITO indicates we are to include the Volume number on the CD. Does the Government want a single CD containing all Volumes, or one CD for each Volume?

A46: A single CD is sufficient.

Q47: Para 1.4 of the ITO refers to a due date of Wednesday, 19 June 12. For clarification purposes, 19 June 12 is a Tuesday. Please clarify that the Proposal is due on Tuesday, 19 June 12.

A47: The proposal due date is Tuesday, 19 Jun 12.

Q48: Question: Is the proposal due Tuesday June 19 or Wed. 6/20 (Section L, p. 66 refers to due date as “Wednesday 19 June.”) A48: The proposal due date is Tuesday, 19 Jun 12.

Q49: Question: Since June 9 is a Saturday, will PPISs be due to the Govt. on Monday June 11?

A49: Past performance information is due by 12:00pm Monday, 11 Jun 12. This will be reflected in an upcoming amendment.

Q50: In reference to: ITO, Evaluation Factors, Subfactor 1, paragraph 2.b. (h), (i) (j) require a draft Quality Plan, IAW CDRL B010 and PWS Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.3; a Testing Plan, IAW CDRL C002 and Section 2.3.7; and a Training Plan, IAW CDRL D002 and D003 to be submitted with the Technical Proposal. We feel these requirements definitely favor the incumbent’s Team since they likely have approved AISS I plans in these areas.

Q50(a): Shouldn’t these draft Plans be eliminated from the proposal, and then, submitted and approved after award in order to not provide an advantage to the incumbent’s Team, who has access to approved AISS I plans in these areas?

A50(a): The purpose of the Quality Plan, Testing Plan and Training Plan is to demonstrate how offeror will be providing quality, testing, and training in support of the Government. This requirement does not favor the incumbent’s team since the Government is always looking for new, better, and more efficient ways of doing business. These plans include corporate strategies in Quality, Testing, and Training and what efficiencies should be gained in these areas. They are not specific to the AISS II contract, and therefore are not an advantage to the incumbent’s team.

Q50(b): If required as part of the proposal, are these plans included in the 50 page limit?

A50(b): As stated in paragraph 3.2.4 of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, the draft quality plan, draft testing plan, and draft training plan will not count against the 50-page technical volume limit.

Q51: In reference to: ITO, Evaluation Factors, Subfactor 3, paragraph 2.b. (a) and (b) require a draft Configuration Management Plan, IAW CDRL B011 and PWS Sections 2.2.2 and 2.3.2, and a draft Asset Management Plan IAW CDRL B013 and PWS Section 2.3.3 to be submitted with the Technical Proposal. We feel these requirements definitely favor the incumbent’s Team since they likely have approved AISS I plans in these areas.

Q51(a): Shouldn’t these draft Plans be eliminated from the proposal, and then, submitted and approved after award in order to not provide an advantage to the incumbent’s Team, who has access to approved AISS I plans in these areas?

A51(a): The purpose of the Configuration Management Plan and Asset Management Plan is to demonstrate how offeror will be providing configuration management and asset management in support of the Government. This requirement does not favor the incumbent’s team since the Government is always looking for new, better, and more efficient ways of doing business. These plans include corporate strategies in asset management and configuration management and what efficiencies should be gained in these areas. They are not specific to the AISS II contract, and therefore are not an advantage to the incumbent’s team.

Q51(b): If required as part of the proposal, are these plans included in the 50 page limit?

A51(b): As stated in paragraph 3.2.6 of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, the draft configuration management plan and draft asset management plan will not count against the 50-page technical volume.

Q52: In reference to: ITO, Evaluation Factors, paragraph 2.b., Subfactor 2, paragraph (a) requires a specific resume for 5 named positions, “plus Team leads for tasks, and the System Administrators for the GCCS task.”

Q52(a): Shouldn’t this requirement be limited to the Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager, and Contracts/Business Manager as key personnel, and the other names and resumes be submitted and approved after award in order to not provide an advantage to the incumbent’s team, who already has these AISS I positions filled with approved personnel?

A52(a): Requiring specific resumes for key personnel will not provide an unfair advantage to the incumbent’s team as each offeror/team should be negotiating with individuals to fill the key positions prior to award.

Q52(b): If all these resumes are required as part of the proposal, are these resumes included in the 50 page limit?

A52(b): As stated in paragraph 1.2.1 of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, resumes of key personnel is an exception to the page limitations.

Q53: In reference to: ITO, Evaluation Factors, paragraph 2.b., Subfactor 2, (a) states “Salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract should be included in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, incorporated by reference.” Should this type of information even be in a Staffing Plan under Key Personnel identification?

A53: An overview of the salaries and fringe benefits described under Subfactor 2 should be included in each offeror’s Staffing Plan. However, any dollar value related to the topic should be discussed in Volume IV, Contract Documentation and Price.

Q54: In reference to: PWS, paragraph 1.2 requires the contractor to provide applications, infrastructure, and systems support services for the programs/systems called out in the PWS. In order to better define the level of effort and relevancy of our past performance, we need more details of the currently available hardware, software, and tools to prepare a more accurate and responsive proposal, which adequately addresses the necessary services compliant with the PWS requirements. A listing of infrastructure assets (i.e., servers, applications, operating systems, etc.) is needed. We saw that the Bidder’s Library contained documentation that provided this type of information; however, there was insufficient time to capture all of the information needed. In the interest of fair competition against the incumbent’s Team, will the Government provide a listing of the current inventory items (hardware and software type, version, number, associated program or project office, etc.) with the final RFP?

A54: A hardware/software historical list will be provided.

Q55: Please clarify the meaning of “specific resumes of the key personnel listed in 6.3 of the PWS” in RFP Section L, paragraph 2b1, Subfactor 2, (a)2. Does this mean the resumes are required to be named, or will names blacked out or generic resumes with a person’s qualifications be acceptable?

A55: Yes, names are required on the specific resumes.

Q56: In PWS 6.3, Key Personnel, it indicates that for each key person on this contract a name is to be given to the COR in writing. Since this is not a Personal Services Contract (PWS 9), are you requesting names after Contract Award?

A56: Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items, Subfactor 2 requires the contractor to identify key personnel listed in 6.3 of the PWS in offeror’s Staffing Plan. However the PWS requirement to give specific names to the COR in writing will be done after contract award.

Q57: Please validate that the specific task areas mentioned in PWS 6.3.6, Team Leads, “The contractor shall provide the names of all Team Leads for each specific task area to the COR in writing” are 2.1, Process Support Services; 2.2, Enterprise Support Services; and 2.3, MAF C2, ITV/Business Systems Support A57: It is up to each offeror/team to decide their organizational structure and to determine which specific task areas they will require Team Leads for. Therefore, contracting cannot validate the specific task areas mentioned in the question.

Q58: RE PWS 2.4, EXERCISE SERVICES. Please clarify the sentence, “When directed by the Government, the contractor will provide a transition plan and documentation for Operations and Management for all Level 1 and 2 services provided.”

Q58(a): Please clarify what comprises the Operations and Management Level 1 and 2 services.

A58(a): For Exercise Services, AISS currently provides all levels of technical support. In the future, Level 1 and Level 2, which includes database administrator support and system administrator support may be transitioned to another contract. For exercise and non-production environment support, AISS II provides all technical support.

Q58(b): Does the Operations and Management for all Level 1 and 2 services refer only to exercise services and exercise environments?

A58(b): AISS II will provide all levels of support for the Exercise, engineering, testing and training environments and non-production environments.

Q58(c): If it includes any normal operations and maintenance level 1 and 2 services outside of the exercise environment, please identify the services and the environments.

A58(c): Includes non-production environments which are described in the PWS.

Q59: Can you verify that a man-year constitutes 2080 hours?

A59: This is a performance-based effort, and it is up to each offeror/team to determine the level of performance required to meet the PWS requirements. Therefore, contracting cannot verify that a man-year constitutes 2080 hours.

Q60: Aside from the Technical Proposal Checklist (TPC), there does not appear to be a requirement for a Compliance Matrix. If we include a Compliance Matrix other than the TPC with our Proposal, will it be excluded from the page count?

A60: Since a Compliance Matrix is not required by the RFP, it will not be excluded from the page count.

Q61: The Technical Proposal Checklist, Subfactor Staffing Approach, item (2), addresses “salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract...”. Please verify that this information is only to be included in Volume IV, Contract Documentation and Price.

A61: An overview of the salaries and fringe benefits described under Subfactor 2 should be included in each offeror’s Staffing Plan. However, any dollar value related to the topic should be discussed in Volume IV, Contract Documentation and Price.

Q62: The Service Summary in the ITO and in the QASP primarily evaluates performance for contractor tasks PWS 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. Will the Service Summary be revised to include PWS 2.4, Exercise Services?

A62: The PWS has been revised to move Exercise Services from section 2.4 to sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.3.4.1.2. Therefore, exercise services will be under those specific tasks in the QASP.

Q63: In Instructions to Offerors (ITO), Section 5.2.3 (Price Completeness, Reasonableness, and Realism), the following sentence reads “A breakdown should also be provided for price traceability which shows the skill mix, labor categories, position descriptions, estimated number of hours, and estimated fully burden labor rates”. Could you please clarify the requirements of a “position description”? If in fact position descriptions are required in Volume IV Contract Documentation & Price, are “position descriptions” to be associated with each proposed position or each proposed labor category?

A63: Position descriptions are required for each proposed labor category.

Q64: Question: New PWS Section 2.4 (Exercise Svcs.), page 27, has no corresponding L/M references. Please confirm that contractors are expected to respond to this section in their proposals.

A64: The PWS has been revised to move Exercise Services from section 2.4 to sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.3.4.1.2.

Q65: Reference RFQ page 77 of 101, para 2b.(2) (b), Relevancy Ratings Table. The Very Relevant definition within the table requires “Recent DoD experience in providing expertise in Mobility Air Force (MAF) C2, ITV/Business Systems and functional, technical, analytical, and management support expertise in four or more of the following areas:” The Relevant definition requires DoD experience and expertise in three or more of the areas, and the Somewhat Relevant definition requires DoD or commercial experience in two or more of the areas. It appears that limiting the Very Relevant definition to experience in only "Mobility Air Force C2, ITV/Business Systems and functional, technical, analytical, and management support expertise” greatly favors incumbent contractors currently performing the AISS contract and makes it impossible for companies that are capable of performing the work with DOD experience, but lacking specific MAF expertise, to fairly compete for this opportunity. Will the Government delete the specific Very Relevant reference to MAF C2 and replace it with “DOD and non-DOD Federal”?

A65: MAF C2 experience is not limited to just the incumbent contractor. There is a large number of contractors that could have this type of experience. Additionally, because the Tradeoff source selection methodology will be used, not receiving a “Very Relevant” rating will not necessarily prevent the contractor from receiving the award. The Government will select the best overall offer.

Q66: Attachment 1, PPIS – we request that the Govt. delete requirement “I”, which states:

“Specify, by name, any key individual(s) who participated in this program and are proposed to support the instant acquisition. Also, indicate their contractual roles for both acquisitions.”

A66: Section I of the PPIS will remain unchanged.

Q67: PWS paragraph 1.2, page 5, Scope: Enterprise Information Management (EIM) and ITO paragraph 5.2.3, page 70 Price Completeness, Reasonableness, and Realism

“EIM Support Services CLIN pricing and Surge CLIN pricing shall only include the labor categories, position descriptions, and fully burdened labor rates. Hours will be negotiated at the time of utilization.”

Question: When considering labor categories for supporting EIM, should the support be considered under PWS sections 2.2 Enterprise Support Services or 2.3 MAF C2, ITV/Business Systems Support Services?

A67: The support should be considered under both 2.2 Enterprise Support Services and 2.3 MAF C2, ITV/Business Systems Support Services.

Q68: PWS Section 2.2, page 8, Enterprise Support Services: Global Aircrew Scheduling/Global Aircrew Management/Dynamic Mission Re-planning (GAS/GAM/DMR) and their associated environments are not directly called out in the PWS.

Q68(a): Please indicate if GAS/GAM/DMR support is built into the PWS.

A68(a): GAS/GAM/DMR are projects that fall under GDSS described in the PWS

Q68(b): If so, under which subtask(s) should we propose solutions and staffing?

A68(b): GAS/GAM/DMR falls under GDSS Q69: PWS paragraph 2.2.6, page 15, Security Practices:

Q69(a): As Level 3 provider is the AISS team expected to apply the IAVA patching and GOTS/COTS releases to any of the operational environments?

A69(a): Yes.

Q69(b): If so, what specific systems environment are we expected to patch and what type of patches are we to apply?

A69(b): This could apply to any systems described in the PWS.

Q70: PWS paragraph 2.4, page 27, Exercise Support: “This section pertains to the services specific to the support of the Exercise environments. The contractor shall provide fielding, CM, asset management, modernization, all levels of technical support, and engineering support. Additionally, the contractor may be required to travel worldwide in order to provide on-site technical assistance.”

Q70(a): Will Exercise Support be included in Enterprise Support Services, MAF C2, ITV/Business Systems Support Services, or a separate CLIN?

A70(a): The PWS has been modified to include Exercise Support in paragraphs 2.2, 2.3, and 2.3.4.1.2.

Q70(b): Will there be any functional support requirement associated with this task?

A70(b): AISS II may provide training in conjunction with an exercise.

Q71: Evaluation – Commercial Items 2b., page 74, Subfactor 2, Staffing Approach, para (a)2. “Salaries and Fringe benefits proposed for professional employees who will work under the contract should be included in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, incorporated by reference.”

The FAR section cited refers to 29 CFR 541, which provides only a subjective definition of “professional employee.”

Q71(a): Please identify which, if any, AISS positions are deemed professional employees.

A71(a): This is determined by each offeror/team.

Q71(b): If a subcontractor is to source a prospective professional employee, the information requested would be proprietary. Please provide instructions for handling this information?

A71(b): Sealed packages may be submitted with proposals to protect proprietary information.

Q72: Evaluation – Commercial Items paragraph 2c., page 77, Past Performance Factor:

“Each team member’s (prime and sub) past performance will be evaluated in aggregate with all contracts being submitted of equal importance.”

Question: If two performance examples are submitted by a single company, one assessed as Very Relevant, the other as Relevant, is the aggregate assessment lower than it would have been if only the Very Relevant example had been submitted?

A72: As stated in Addendum to 52.212-2, c. Past Performance Factor, paragraph 2, “the government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers; Past Performance Questionnaires; and commercial sources.” Therefore, the Government will be using more than just the two examples mentioned in the question and all of this information will be compiled to come up with an overall Confidence Assessment rating. Each offeror’s past performance will not receive an overall Relevancy rating.

Q73: In reference to Section 1.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Pages Limits under the Instructions to Offerors (ITO); is it the Government’s intent that the volumes and tables of contents be labeled starting at 2.0 as listed in Table 1.2 – Proposal Organization?

A73: The numbers in the second column represent the Instructions to Offerors paragraph number where each volume is discussed. Refer to the first column entitled “Volume” and third column entitled “Volume Title” instead. For example, the Executive Summary should be Volume I, Technical/Technical Risk should be Volume II, etc.

Q74: Exercise support was added to the final PWS after we were given the CLIN spreadsheet.

Q74(a): Will a new CLIN spreadsheet be provided since we are assuming we must price exercise services?

A74(a): A new CLIN spreadsheet will not be provided. The PWS has been revised to move Exercise Services from section 2.4 to sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.3.4.1.2.

Q74(b): Per the instructions to the offeror; we must provide a resume for all team leads. Should we submit a resume for Team Lead, Exercise Services since it’s a separate area under the PWS like 2.1, 2.2, etc?

A74(b): It is up to each offeror/team to decide their organizational structure and to determine which specific task areas they will require Team Leads for.

Q75: In reference to section 2.0 Volume I – Executive Summary a 10 page limitation is mandated. Does the Master Table of Contents count against the page requirement? Is the Master Table of Contents excluded from the 10 page limit?

A75: As stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors paragraph 1.2.1, table of contents are excluded from page limitations. This includes the Master Table of Contents.

Q76: In accordance with RFP FA4452-12-R-0002, reference the ITO 5.0 Volume IV – Contract Documentation and Price – 5.0 Volume IV – Contract Documentation and Price; Will the Government please provide fillable (fill-in) versions of the SF 1449 and SF 1449 Continuation Sheets?

A76: Fill-in versions will not be provided.

Q77: The following guidance regarding the Draft Quality Plan appears on AISS II RFP page 74, in Section M2.b. Subfactor B 1 (h): Draft Quality Plan (QP) described in CDRL B010 and PWS sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.3. In the QP, provide the process your firm would use to systematically provide for early identification of non-conforming supplies or services, develops metrics to track performance trends, details the corrective actions required to ensure timely and acceptable delivery/performance in accordance with the PWS, and details their partnering approach with the government to ensure mission objectives are met. The QP shall also comply with ISO 10005.

In the AISS II CDRLs signed on 4/23/12 by Mr. Eric Hassenplug and received on May 30, CDRL B010 is missing.

Q77(a): Could the Government please indicate where contractors can locate this CDRL in order to ensure that our draft quality plan complies with it?

A77(a): B010 is included in the list of CDRLs posted to FedBizOpps. A Quality Plan template will not be provided by the Government.

Q78: Is it permissible to save space by presenting the PPIS Section C, Contract Specifics, data in tabular format?

A78: No.

Q79: Will the Government consider allowing a 2-page introduction to Vol. III, Past Performance, exempt from page count?

A79: No.

Q80: Per RFP page 74, Section M 2.b(1) Subfactor 2 (a) 2, does the Government expect simply language describing salaries and fringe benefits packages, as opposed to a full buildup in a sealed package, please clarify.

A80: An overview of the salaries and fringe benefits described under Subfactor 2 should be included in each offeror’s Staffing Plan. However, any dollar value related to the topic should be discussed in Volume IV, Contract Documentation and Price. A full buildup in a sealed package is acceptable.

Q81: Regarding transition, how will the Government handle what appears to be an unfair advantage to the incumbent who will offer a zero-cost to the Government for the 3-month phase in period? Would the Government consider providing a firm fixed price, not to exceed amount for the Phase-in Period as to level the “playing field?”

A81: As stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items, paragraph d. Price Factor, “The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated based upon the total price proposed for base period and all options, except for the phase-in. Phase-in will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness but will not be considered as part of the evaluation of total price.”

Q82: Would the Government consider extending the due date of 19 Jun?

A82: The proposal due date will be extended to 2:00pm CDT on 21 Jun.

Q83: The incumbent contractor was able to perform the AISS (development, requirements, IV&V, etc.) after receiving multiple OCI waivers through AMC. Given that the current AISS team is responsible for both software development and IV&V, requirements, etc., how is the Government going to address these existing conflicts while applying the more restrictive federal OCI program in place today versus what was used when the waivers were invoked?

A83: As stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 paragraph 5.2.7, “At time of submitting proposal, offeror must either state affirmatively that it has no OCI issues, or it must submit an Organizational Conflict of Interest Identification Mitigation Plan (OIMP).” Additionally, the Government will provide oversight of specific tasks which may potentially be OCI concerns. Significant OCI concerns exist for AISS II and several other ongoing acquisitions related to AISS II in regards to software development and testing of software. The Government will take this concern into consideration for each of the affected acquisitions and ensure any OCI issues that arise are resolved prior to award.

Q84: Page 70, Item 5.1.4 Attachments states, “Attachments to the RFP include: Attachment 1 – Performance Work Statement (PWS); Attachment 2 – Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP); Attachment 3 – DD254.” Is it the Government’s intent for vendors to include the entire PWS 50+ pages in Volume IV? Please clarify.

A84: No, vendors do not need to include the PWS in their proposals.

Q85: Page 70, Item 5.2.3 Price Completeness, Reasonableness and Realism states, “A breakdown should also be provided for price traceability which shows the skill mix, labor categories, position descriptions, estimated number of hours, and estimated fully burdened labor rates. Information shall also show the consolidated total price for performance.” Should this detail be provided in Excel? If so, should the excel document be provided as a separate Volume IV electronically? Please clarify.

A85: It is up to each offeror/team to decide how they want to display this information in Volume IV of their proposal. This information must be included in each of the hard copies of their proposal as well as the electronic copy required by Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 paragraph 1.3 Electronic Offers.

Q86: Since Question 82 changed the proposal due date to 2:00pm CDT on 21 Jun (2 days) would the Government consider a 2 day extension on the past performance as well?

A86: The past performance due date will be extended to 4:00pm CDT 13 Jun 12.

Q87: In regards to Amendment 0002 of the solicitation, is the entire Past Performance volume due on 13 Jun 12 or just the PPQs and PPIS’s?

A87: The PPQs and PPIS’s are due at 4:00pm CDT 13 Jun 12. The remainder of the Past Performance volume (if any) is due with proposals, no later than 2:00pm CDT 21 Jun 12.