The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
AISS III QUESTIONS
| Question # |
| Page # |
| Section/Para # |
| QUESTIONS |
| Bidders Library |
| Estimated workload for ACAS and Sys Int are not in the Bidder’s Library and were not included in the June 13th release. When do you anticipate these estimated workloads to be made available? ACAS and Sys Int estimated workload docs are attached to this FBO posting. |
Due date Due to the extensive pricing requirements, drafting of the 7 plans within the technical volume, time to review and assess impact of the delayed released estimated workloads for GATES, GCCS, GDSS, and MAC-D, we respectfully request a minimum 14 day extension to the current June 26th due date. The government anticipates an extension will be executed changing the proposal due date to 30 Jun 17. No further extension will be possible. An upcoming notice will post a new SF30 Amendment documenting the change in proposal due date.
| 3 |
| 7 / 16 / Appendix A (AISS Services Matrix) / Appendix B (AISS Test Events) / Bidder’s Library / Atch 4 Pricing |
| ACFP system references |
| ACFP is listed as an “Optional” requirement within the PWS and in Appendix A. Appendix A reflects ACFP testing requirements in Task 16 as does the Bidder’s Library’s ACFP Estimated Workload file and ACFP pricing is required in the Pricing Atch 4, however ACFP is not listed in the Appendix B Test Event matrix. Will the Government update Appendix B to include ACFP? There are no planned testing events for ACFP, therefore, not included in Appendix B. Currently MAFPS is projected to field in FY18, ACFP is referenced in PWS for precautionary purposes only. Any testing required for ACFP would simply be to fix operational issues or security mitigations. No new releases would be required for testing. |
| 4 |
| 7 / 16 / Appendix A (AISS Services Matrix) / Appendix B (AISS Test Events) / Bidder’s Library |
| ACFP system references |
| For evaluation purposes and proper pricing of the ACFP CLINS 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002, should bidder’s assume ACFP will remain operational through FY23 and price accordingly? Or, given the apparent uncertainty of ACFP support under AISS III, would it be acceptable to not price any of the ACFP CLINS in our proposal submission and wait until after award to enter into negotiations for the required ACFP support? Offerors shall price all CLINS. |
and RFP CLINs page 9 MAC-D is referred to as a system in the “Help Desk Support” table as well as in the last column of Appendices A & B, and in the RFP CLINs. We cannot find reference to MAC-D in any other RFP documents or attachments, nor anything in the Bidders Library. Will the government please provide necessary MAC-D details (e.g., function, workload estimate, software type, assets needing to be supported by AISS, etc.)? See package on FBO from June 13th that incorporated MAC-D estimated workload. Mobility Air Cross-Domain (MAC-D), is the name of Air Mobility Command's (AMC's) current cross-domain solution. MAC-D provides for automated bi-directional data flow between unclassified and classified Secret (NIPR to SIPR, SIPR to NIPR) networks of Mobility Air Forces (MAF) mission information. Current MAC-D is operationally fielded in a hardware configuration, however, a virtualized MAC-D is also being tested and fielded, eventually reducing current ISSE Guard string hardware from five servers to a single server hosting a virtualized version of MAC-D. Support is required for installation of ISSE hardware and software, enterprise integration and testing, and associated documentation, working in conjunction with the Government, as well as Air Force Research Laboratories (AFRL) (cross-domain solution providers). Instances of MAC-D are in the Government test environment (C2 Support Enclave), as well as operational environments C2 Operational Enclave.
| 6 |
| 91-92 |
| ITO 1.2.3 Cross Referencing |
| Can we refer to the required technical volume plans within the technical volume text? The intent with this para is to limit the amount of time evaluators have to spend going back and forth within a document or documents. Offerors are to present information in a manner that affords evaluators this opportunity. If a table is needed to support a narrative for a specific section, subsection, etc., be sure to include the table in the respective area. |
| 7 |
| 91-92 |
| ITO 1.2.1 Page Limitations; ITO 1.2.5 Title Page |
| Is the title page the same as the cover page? Yes |
| 8 |
| 91 |
| RFP, ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 / 1.2.1.1(a) |
| Paragraph “Page Size and Format” states, “A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts.” There are no further directions on foldouts as to page count. It has become typical to allow foldouts for tables and large figures only and count as one page for that purpose. Will the Government provide additional guidance on foldouts and impact on page count? Foldouts, if necessary, can be used and shall be no larger than 11x17in if printed out on hard copy paper. Each “foldout” will count as a single page. |
| 9 |
| 91 |
| RFP, ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 / 1.2.1.1(b) |
| Paragraph “Page Size and Format” states, “Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 8.5 x 11 inches in size.” If foldouts (11” x 17” paper as an example) are permitted (para 1.2.1.1(a)), it could be normally expected that these figures could exceed the referenced maximum measurement. Would the Government provide clarification on the maximum size of figures as they pertain to foldouts? Foldouts, if necessary, can be used and shall be no larger than 11x17in if printed out on hard copy paper. Each “foldout” will count as a single page. |
| 10 |
| 93 |
| ITO 1.3 Electronic Offers |
| Please confirm a hard copy submission of the volumes is not required. Only a CD is required IAW para 1.3 |
| 11 |
| 94 |
| RFP, ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 / 3.2.3 |
| The paragraph states that a Teaming Matrix is required but does not address whether this is included in the 50-page limit stated in Table 1.2 for Volume II as addressed in the subsequent paragraphs 3.2.4 Subfactor One – Technical Approach and 3.2.5 Subfactor Two – Staffing Approach. Is the Teaming Matrix included in the 50-page limit for Vol II Technical/Technical Risk? Yes, the teaming matrix is included as part of the page limitation |
| 12 |
| 95 |
| ITO 3.2.4-3.2.6 Subfactors 1-3 |
| Is it acceptable to include the required plans at the end of the technical volume? Each plan should be a separate document. They are all separate from the 50 pg. count in the technical volume. |
| 13 |
| 96 |
| 4.2 Early Proposal Information |
| Reference PPQs. The paragraph states the POCs (plural) listed in the PPIS (3 positions) will complete a PPQ and forward them by email directly to the AISS-3 COs. We interpret this as the Government requesting 3 PPQs per PP (therefore up to 15 PPQs). The paragraph further states “The SSEB will evaluate no more than five PPQs (total) for each offeror/team”. Is it the Government’s intent to receive three PPQs per PP or just one? If just one (more logical), is there a preference that it come from the Program/Site Manager, Procuring Contracting Officer, or Administrative Contracting Officer? Please clarify. The Government intends to receive PPQs from just one POC for each past performance effort used in each PPIS. The Government has no preference as to which POC submits the PPQ. |
| 14 |
| 97 |
| RFP, ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 / 5.1.3 |
| Technical Proposal Checklist. The paragraph states: ”The offeror shall complete and submit the Technical Proposal Checklist (Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Attachment 6) to support the completeness of their technical proposal.” This attachment was not found on the FBO announcement. Will the Government provide FAR 52.212-1, Attachment 6? IAW Amendment 01 The RFP has removed the instructions where the Technical Proposal Checklist requirement was listed. No Attachment 6 is provided or required to be submitted. |
| 15 |
| 98 |
| ITO 5.2.3 Price Completeness and Reasonableness |
| Could you please define what is “each major functional element” specified in the PWS? In short, each major functional element translates to a single task area. Each supported program is it’s own CLIN. Each program has its own task areas that are required to be accomplished (as evidenced by the RFP pricing attachment “yellow” cells). Offerors that show how each “yellow” cell amount is derived will have at least met the requirement to show how each major functional element is supported IAW the ITO para 5.2.3. Please note: Offerors do not need to submit a breakout on how the travel, ODC, or Surge yellow cell amounts are generated as these are Government provided NTE amounts. For the Phase-in CLIN (not identified on the RFP pricing attachment), show how your phase-in proposed price was derived. |
| 16 |
| 98 |
| RFP, ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, ITO / Para 5.2.3 |
| Paragraph 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.” As each subcontractor will provide burdened rates to the prime, does the Government require a separate package from subcontractors showing the burdening breakout of labor rates? No burdening breakout is required from prime or subs. No granularity is required beyond the fully burdened rate / hr for each individual employee on each labor category. |
| 17 |
| 99 |
| ITO 5.2.3 Surge CLIN description/instruction |
| We see on the pricing template the NTE Surge values, but have not found references in the documentation on estimated surge requirements. How are we to estimate the surge requirement for pricing purposes when (as stated in the ITO), “Hours will be negotiated at the time of utilization”? Or should we simply leave the NTE values in place for purposes of the proposal? The surge requirement is estimated to be the government provided NTE amount. What the surge actually looks like at time of execution (if needed) will not be known until its execution. As such, leave the NTE values in place for proposal purposes. The rates provided to support the AISS requirement in whole will be the rates used during the surge negotiations for number of hours. |
| 18 |
| 100 |
| RFP, ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 / 5.2.8 |
| Security Clearance. The paragraph states: “All contractor personnel will be required by the DD Form 254 to have SECRET clearance at contract award.“ Will an interim Secret clearance suffice for this requirement? Yes, an interim SECRET will suffice for an employee to begin work. |
| 19 |
| 102 |
| Evaluation Factors 2.b(1) Subfactor 1 |
| Please provide further detail on the evaluation criteria to receive a “pass” for Measures of Merit (a)-(d)? The pass/fail designation for (a) – (d) here is intended to notify offerors that there is no trade-off space available in these measures of merit. This means the Government (for these measures of merit only) is not willing to give positive consideration for things that would otherwise be considered strengths. |
| 20 |
| 103 |
| RFP 2.b.Subfactor 2. (a).2. Identification of Key Personnel |
| “The contractor shall include the specific resumes of the key personnel.” Given the lengthy time frame between proposal submission (26 June 2017) and the start of transition (13 June 2018), it is highly unlikely that any Key Personnel presented now by non-incumbents will be available for employment in June 2018. Given this reality will the Government allow generic/representative resumes instead of specific resumes for Key Personnel? The government recognizes that key personnel may be changed before execution, but any substitutions must have the same qualifications and experience. Generic resumes will not be accepted. |
| 21 |
| 7 / 16 / Appendix A (AISS Services Matrix) / Appendix B (AISS Test Events) / Bidder’s Library / Atch 4 Pricing |
| GATES system references |
| Appendix A reflects seemingly significant GATES testing requirements in Task 16 as does the just released Bidder’s Library’s GATES Estimated Workload file. However GATES testing shown in the Appendix B Test Event matrix does not seem to match Appx A reqs or the Workload file. Will the Government please clarify GATES testing requirements so this may be properly scoped and priced? The workload estimate on on GATES, cell B9, is changed from 6/quarterly to 1/monthly. |
| 22 |
| PWS pgs 37-38 |
| Place of Performance |
| Section 5.2 states: “Contractor activities will be conducted at Scott AFB, or at a Contractor facility located within Scott AFB commuting distance (50-mile radius).” Section 5.4 goes on to state: “The government currently has approximately 182 workstations available for AISS III Contractor support...” For proper pricing purposes, please clarify if there is space on Scott AFB to accommodate approximately 182 FTEs (i.e., 1 workstation/FTE) or if not, how many FTEs can be physically accommodated at Scott AFB to support AISS III? Additionally, if not all staff can be located on Scott AFB, which functions must be on base and which may be remote (within 50 miles)? The government can support up to 196 FTE workstations; however, only 107 can be physically accommodated on base. All other personnel beyond that number will be required to reside off-base on a contractor facility within the local commuting istance. Please note this is a performance based services acquistion; FTE counts may vary depending on each offeror’s unique technical solution and associated staffing requirements. |
| 23 |
| RFP Pricing Attachment |
| EIM Pricing tab |
| The EIM tab prices from the RFP pricing spreadhseet do not total correctly. Please advise. The formulas for the EIM tab in column J were incorrectly entered or unintentionally missing. Each “OM” (orange) cell in column J should be 75% of its respective task. Each “OPS” (blue) cell in column J should be 25% of its respective task. Please update your spreadsheets accordingly when filling out and submitting. |
