Q and A

AISS II Pre and Post Industry Day Q&A 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 Bread Down 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.