MASS_Q A_-_6_Jan_14.pdf

MOBILE AIR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (MASS)

INDUSTRY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

6 January 2014

12 July 2013 - Industry Day Open Forum:

Q1: What is the current security situation at each of the locations? (History, precautions in place, contractor v. Gov‟t responsibility)

A1: Though the security-related specifics of particular events are classified, in general Colombia is still dangerous. At two sites lightly armored vehicles are required for protection; two of the sites are located in the “Red Zone” and accessed by aircraft. San Andres has the lowest threat level, and the contractor will have an RSO in Bogota working with the Government’s security coordinator. There have been no recent events and the threat has dropped recently, but there is still the threat of kidnapping and Bogotá bombings as well as the “normal” petty crime associated with similar urban areas. There are Green, Yellow, and Red zones in Bogota; US personnel are restricted to the Green Zones with any travel required within Yellow and Red zones accomplished with lightly armored vehicles. The buddy system is implemented for US personnel when off Government installations. Appendix N notes that body armor is located on the Colombian Military Radar sites, but it is not needed on a regular basis. If the government requires additional armor or other security measures for government personnel or due to directing a temporary increase in security levels, this will be done on a CR basis. The Appendix also contains the requirements for lightly armored vehicles provided as part of the FFP portion of the effort, and the panel noted that the contractor would most likely not purchase them since

Columbian licensing requirements would probably necessitate the use of HN subcontractors to meet these requirements.

Q2: Is there a requirement for Contractor Replacement Center (CRC) training (one week at Ft. Benning)?

A2: The CRC training at Ft Benning is NOT required prior to travel as this is a CENTCOM requirement. SOUTHCOM does NOT require CRC training and will provide security briefs prior to allowing travel within the AOR, or within 24 hours of arrival in country. The training required by COCOMs is also available on the Aircraft and Personnel Automated Clearance

System (APACS)

Q3: Is the Government using a Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) tool? If not, is there an expectation for the contractor to provide a Management Information System (MIS)?

A3: The requirement for an overall MIS and various subsystems is contained within the PWS.

We need access for a minimum of 6 Government users at any one time, with no limit to the number of government users provided system access. The current system is NOT Government owned – the data is, therefore a task during the transition period will be the migration of that data into the new system – the successful offeror will NOT be able to just take over and operate the current MIS.

Industry noted that unlimited licenses are a big cost driver and asked about the use of enterprise licenses via Government sources. The reply was that the Government did not wish to drive such a narrow requirement and was looking for Industry innovation in the area.

Update: The maximum number of government personnel requiring access is 50.

Q4: Is this considered an ACAT 1 Program; if yes, responsible for OSS&E compliance?

A4: No. MASS is not considered any level ACAT.

Q5: Where does MASS stand in the FY15 PPB&E process?

A5: The program is fully funded by counter-drug money through the end of FY19, subject to change if directed by Congress. It is not funded through the normal AF budget, but by counter-drug money specifically fenced by Congress for that purpose and managed by DoD, by the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counter-Narcotics and Global Threats (DASD-

CN/GT). The budget has been fairly stable, but it is not immune from current fiscal realities.

There have been some directed cuts in this funding already and it is still subject to Congressional action that could further reduce funding levels.

Q6: Is the contractor responsible for Tier 0, 1, or 2 help desk functions?

A6: There is no such requirement; it is an IT function, probably misunderstood due to the possibility of phone support to the FAC as noted in the PWS. This is merely the first phase of the

Rapid Response team’s effort to resolve a problem and avoid unnecessary travel. If this does not resolve the issue the team will make the necessary trip IAW the PWS. It is not a considered a help desk capability.

Q7: Does the Government intend to provide the SEMP/SEP, LCMP & CMP?

A7: The Government is NOT providing a life cycle management plan. These are legacy systems and there are diminishing sources for support and spare parts. Industry will be able to see the data the government has once the bidder’s library is available. All radars belong to the FAC except for the one currently in Belize, which may be in operation at some point during this contract. However, the present Belize deployment is currently scheduled to end in July 2014.

We do have copies of the manuals provided, some government and some commercial. Repairs are done IAW these manuals by the technicians, depot, or OEM. Some parts are also supportable by third parties, and support can be provided in-house if the successful offeror has the capability. In house repairs are generally cheaper. Regarding Gov’t data rights vs. OEM owned rights – some yes, some no depending on part/subsystem. The government does not own universal “government use rights” for this equipment.

Q8: Section L covers Program Management, Logistics and Transition. Why doesn‟t it address Operations & Maintenance?

A8: Section L contains portions of the PWS that present the most risk. These evaluation factors should give us what we need to evaluate proposals. Since the 5 radars have been turned over to

Colombia, the remaining O&M requirements in the PWS are for SATCOM and TADIL sites.

Technical acceptability in these areas can be discerned from the other evaluation sub-factors, especially the Program Management aspects such as “Quality Workforce” and “Quality

Management System.” A technically acceptable approach that satisfies these evaluation factors will demonstrate the technical expertise needed to accomplish the job outlined in the PWS.

Q9: Is the 5% incentive pool for FFP CLINs?

A9: Yes, the 5% is calculated based on the total of all FFP CLINs only. Basically, a major discrepancy would affect the entire fee earned for the period – the incentive is not calculated on a

CLIN by CLIN basis, but a total basis. Therefore, any major discrepancy will have the same effect on the points earned and the total fee for any specific period, no matter which CLIN it was associated with. The panel noted there has not been a history of many major discrepancies on the program.

Q10: Where can bidders receive L&M drafts?

A10: A draft of these sections is currently posted to FBO. They will be updated as necessary and also included within the draft RFP, currently scheduled to be posted there sometime in August.

Q11: Performance Incentive – The -1 point is too punitive; especially if the Fee starts at

5%. Companies never realize the total Fee; they realize Net Fee. The difference is used to cover contract items of unknown origin. This benefits the Government.

A11: The panel noted that Award Fees have been used successfully and well in the past for

MASS, but there have been many instances where they have not been administered as well on other programs and therefore they are currently out of favor within the Air Force. The panel again explained how this incentive plan was expected to work, including the note that the contractor may find themselves not earning an incentive fee for any particular period – but the plan structure does not allow for any case where the contractor would owe money. The period’s incentive will either be zero or some positive award, but there will never be a negative assessment. This proposed plan has a unique structure; no one has seen a similar one before on an FFP contract. Note the -1 point would affect the total points earned for the period, it does

NOT mean a reduction of 1% from the starting point of 5%. The government ended by asking for industry assistance in making improvements to the proposed incentive fee setup.

Q12: Cost Incentive – The cost incentive is prejudicial against good business. As systems age, O&M costs increase by definition. Check with DAU. Therefore, unless you give R&D or Mod dollars to the contractor to upgrade the components and attain “future” savings, the contractor is doomed to not attain this incentive.

A12: The incentive pool was based on a study of costs incurred from FY10 through 12, and these costs were fairly stable over that three year span. Therefore this should not be a problem, but if repair costs do increase faster than expected the incentive pool can be re-adjusted to compensate for the increase. Due to that issue and the uncertainty of what parts would need repair, it was not feasible to start out with the usual a basic pool – the proposed pool uses average costs and the calculations are based on average repair costs per item – not the total cost during the period – in order to mitigate the effects of any one part or repair instance being more expensive than usual during that particular period. The Government also noted the MASS goal is to keep the systems working up to specifications, and not necessarily keeping them identical to the units as delivered by the OEMs. The technology may be 40 years old, but these radars aren’t. They were delivered new in the 90s.

Q13: Please provide an Internal Government Estimate of the labor by labor category, location and hours.

A13: The labor on this contract will be FFP, so it is up to the contractor to propose and perform;

we are not going to be publishing what we think the contractor needs to perform the tasking.

Instead of telling you how to do it, we will be looking at how you propose to do it and judging you based on our assessment of meeting the requirements with your proposal, so make sure you can justify your decisions and defend them. Workload estimates and historical data will be provided, but not the number of bodies that have been used.

Q14: Is there a plan to modernize the radar systems? The TPS radars in the FAC were delivered from Egyptian Government as a resale. What has been the typical up-time on the current systems (what is the average total time on the current systems)?

A14: The FAC’s systems will be replaced by Colombia, not the US Air Force, when the time comes. The contractor will not be held responsible for the FAC’s systems, only those FAC parts turned over to them for repair. This responsibility extends through the repair period and ceases once the repaired item is delivered back to the FAC. These TPS-70s were not deployed to

Egypt; they were always part of the program and were installed by the US in Colombia. They were operated by the US until FY09, when they were transferred to the FAC. We expect them to be supportable for the duration of this contract. Management of the repairs, technical support, and scheduled maintenance activities are FFP. The depot repairs that become necessary are CR.

Up-time data is available in the MIS. The follow-on MIS used to support these efforts will belong to the contractor, who will have to provide it. The current system will not be turned over, and the contractor will have to determine if and how they will interface with the FAC’s associated systems.

Q15: Are the various Program Management Systems (CMMS, MMAS, PMIS, etc.)

Government-preferred and maintained, or is the vendor expected to transition to their own

Management Systems and provide access to the Government?

A15: As noted earlier the current MIS is not government owned. The follow-on MIS used to support these efforts will belong to the contractor, who will have to provide it. The current system will not be turned over, and the contractor will have to include the transfer of current data from the existing MIS into their system during the transition phase. Government access requirements are in the PWS and were also noted earlier, see Question 3.

Q16: Warehouse requirements in CONUS and Colombia? What are the size requirements

(sqft) and/or security requirements?

A16: The current CONUS warehouse is not Government owned and cannot be turned over by the government to the successful offeror. The CONUS warehouse can be co-located with the proposed PMO or located elsewhere in the CONUS. The contractor may utilize the two work spaces provided within the FAC warehouse, and the Government will make the current contractor’s Bogota warehouse available to the successful offeror for 30 days after contract performance start date. The contractor will be responsible for providing the required warehouse after the 30 day period. We did calculate an expected size for the CONUS warehouse in completing our budget calculations and this estimate will be provided along with information regarding the Bogotá warehouses.

Update: Warehouse space in CONUS is estimated at 2500 square feet, and the warehouse in

Bogota is estimated at 5000 square feet.

Q17: What is the current workforce size at each location and have they been effectively supporting?

A17: This was addressed earlier, see Question 13. The panel did not answer the question.

Q18: Is there an approved training plan in place?

A18: The FAC is now responsible for any formal training necessary; we do OJT during the monthly trips. This training is primarily driven by host nation requests and also considers Rapid

Response Team observations when preparing for each visit. The successful contractor is responsible for providing qualified personnel throughout the contract performance period and is required to have a training plan to accomplish this IAW paragraph 2.1.2.3 of the PWS.

Q19: As part of the proposal, are you (the Government) expecting a draft PMI Cycle/Plan to support the total support or individuals by site?

A19: PMIs are established by site, as called out by the manuals. The contractor is expected to have a PMI Cycle/Plan that implements the recommendations of the technical manuals provided.

The information below has no relationship to the question asked.

Q20: Is there was flexibility in the PMI schedule to allow PMIs to be accomplished during the routine site visits?

A20: Based on this data it is up to the contractor to determine a travel schedule in coordination with FAC requests and their ability to schedule and provide the down-time necessary to complete

PMIs. The 5 days for the trips as noted in the PWS is a minimum; the contractor can plan to spend longer periods as needed. Note these are FFP trips when preparing the proposals.

Emergency trips can be coordinated as needed and/or requested by the FAC – emergency trips are CR. Note that the TADIL in Tres Esquinas is a US O&M site, and therefore support to it is not considered a part of any 5 day/month FAC support visit to Tres Esquinas.

Clarification: The contractor is responsible for creating the PMI schedule but not for doing the

PMIs at the sites. That is the FAC’s responsibility. Therefore, the routine site visits do not have to be scheduled around any particular PMIs, unless dictated by the planned objectives for a given visit.

Q21: Is there a Government-preferred Logistics Plan in place?

A21: No, it is to be proposed by the offeror as part of the source selection. The requirements are contained in the PWS; we will be evaluating the proposals on their ability to meet that intent.

Tech Orders are maintained by the contractor, so they will be driving the plan to maintain them.

There are very few TOs, and there are also the manuals delivered with the system. These will be available in the Bidder’s Library. There is no TPS-70 depot that “owns” the TOs, they are controlled here at ACC. Any changes needed to the TOs can be accomplished by using the current system in place for modification of TOs.

30 September 2013 - Update:

Q22: PWS paragraph 3.3.7: Does not include the annual facility report requirement for the

HNCC, and Key West as only table A-1 is listed, but it is our understanding that the HNCC and Key West Earth Stations would still require the full report.

A22: The referenced para (3.3.7) was changed to indicate the facilities in Appendix J vice

Appendix A.

Q23: PWS paragraph 4.2.1.1: Contractor provided general purpose vehicle support costs including fuel are FP, but does this requirement also apply for government furnished vehicles (GFVs) since the only thing stating reimbursement is the insurance for GFV? We believe maintenance cost and fuel should be cost reimbursable for GFVs; in addition, Section C, paragraph 2.3, does state repairs on GFV would be CR.

A23: Maintenance cost, fuel, and insurance are CR on Gov furnished vehicles.

Q24: PWS paragraph 4.4.6 including subparagraphs: Is the Visitor Group Security

Agreement applicable since none of the operations are on an Air Force base?

A24: This applies to the work on the SATCOM at DM AFB.

Q25: MASS RFP Section L paragraph L-2.3.1: Does ACC AMIC still anticipate having a

Pre-proposal Conference in addition to the bidders trip tentatively in October?

A25: Yes. Our current plan, subject to change, is to have the Pre-Proposal conference in Bogota the first morning of the site visit in country.

Q26: MASS RFP Section L paragraph L-7.3.1 references ISO 9001:2008, but PWS

Appendix C indicates ISO9001: 2000. Please clarify.

A26: Both will be changed to be consistent with the PWS requirement to be in compliance with the current ISO 9001 standard.

Q27: MASS RFP Section L paragraph L-8.1: Please confirm each PPI limited to 5 pages which would be a total of 25 pages if 5 relevant PPIs were used?

A27: Correct five pages per reference and a maximum of five references.

Q28: MASS RFP Section L paragraph L-8.1.4: What timeframe is required for organizational structure change history?

A28: Only submit history if applicable to recent and relevant past performance references. See para. M-3.2.3 for recency definition.

Q29: MASS RFP Section L Attachment 4: Please confirm that this is only an example and further rows would be required to complete the matrix.

A29: This is only a tool to assist in the proposal preparation process. Offerors are ultimately responsible for ensuring that their proposal fully addresses all areas and that all requested information is completed in accordance with Sections L and M of this solicitation. Offerors may provide additional references to the other rows and columns as deemed necessary.

Q30: We recently downloaded the „draft‟ solicitation documents posted on September 12th.

There is a reference on page 32 of the draft RFP to „Price Table (Atch 5) MS Excel spreadsheet.‟ None of the documents are titled as such, but there is a pdf „Draft_Price_

Table-MASS‟. If that is the referenced attachment 5, would it be possible to make that available in a useable excel file. I am attempting to rebuild it in excel, but the official copy may have unique links and formulas that I would not be aware.

A30: There will be some embedded formulas in the Price Table when it is released with the final

RFP in final form as an Excel spreadsheet. The draft price table originally posted LOOKED correct, which is why it was posted as a pdf file. A working draft of an Excel spreadsheet is now posted for everyone to use in preparation for release of the final RFP.

Q31: The Contract has a DD-254 attachment requiring facility clearance. Can the facility clearance be held by a subcontractor? If the Prime does not hold a facility clearance, is the

Prime eligible for contract award? Can the MASS Government team sponsor the clearance for the Prime for contract execution?

A31: Any company working on this contract must have their own facility clearance whether they are a prime or subcontractor. A Prime is eligible for award if they do not currently hold a clearance and the Government will sponsor the Prime if they are the successful offeror. Note that the prime contractor hires the subcontractor, not the government. The prime is to hire a sub that is qualified to do the work, not a sub that does not have a clearance to do the work. In this case, the government will not sponsor a subcontractor for a facility clearance.

Q32: Does the Prime's accounting system need to be DCAA compliant and have been audited?

A32: The Prime's accounting system will be audited by DCAA to determine indirect billing rates and ensure we can rely on your accounting system for tracking Incurred Cost for Cost

Reimbursable work on the MASS contract. However, you do not need to have a DCAA certified

Cost Accounting System because small businesses are exempt from CAS applicability IAW FAR

Part 9903.201-1(b)(3).

Q33: If there is a team of two small businesses proposing, does the Prime have to do 51% of the work or is this split only applicable if there is a large business acting as a sub to a small business?

A33: IAW the FAR Limitations on Subcontracting Clause 52.219-14(c)(1), the proposal must indicate “at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees” of the prime submitting the proposal. This clause was missing from the draft RFP posted earlier but will be included in the next draft/final RFP posted to FBO.gov.

12 November 2013 - Update:

Q34: CLIN 0008 is shown as COST (pg. 5) and COST REIMBURSABLE (pg. 33), however profit is applied. Please clarify if this is a CPFF or CPIF CLIN.

A34: CLIN 0008 and CLINs X008 (Option years) are CPFF CR CLINs, a fix fee will be negotiated for each Special Project at the of the project.

Q35: (Page 45) The draft solicitation states, “cost reimbursable invoice shall be submitted

NO LATER THAN (NLT) ten (10) days following the contractor‟s fiscal month”. In the event a subcontractor is involved, 10 days could be problematic for the prime. Please consider 15 days.

A35: This will be changed to 15 days.

Q36: (Page 46) Materials and services on a cost-reimbursable basis require preapproval by the government prior to incurring costs. Please confirm the CO, COR, and/or the ACC

AMIC personnel may provide preapproval and clarify whether both verbal and/or written preapproval is acceptable.

A36: The Government personnel (CO or PM [and PLG for emergency airlift]) authorized to preapprove CR costs are listed in the center column ($ Thresholds/Approval Level) of PWS

Table 1, Cost Reimbursable Expenses and Approval Thresholds. Approval is in writing, which can include via email.

Q37: (Page 47) RFP states, Travel expenses for (periodic progress) meetings held elsewhere shall be reimbursed to the contract under the cost-reimbursable Special Projects and travel

CLIN. Please clarify whether the labor associated with these meetings is also charge as

Special Projects.

A37: Labor for attendance at progress meetings is FFP. The personnel attending those meetings should be assigned to the MASS contract and attendance is considered part of their regular tasking under this contract. NOTE: If these progress meetings are held at AMIC, the travel is also considered a pre-planned, FFP expense.

Q38: (Page 118) Please note: The table contains a typing error for closing date for Volume

I Technical.

A38: This typo been removed – the closing date should have read 25 Nov. This date has been changed to 6 Jan 14.

Q39: (Page 121) Is the “Draft Price Table” the document referenced in L-9.1 as the

“Section M, Attachment 1?”

A39: The Section M reference is in error, there are no attachments to Section M. The Price

Table is now properly referenced as Attachment 5 to the RFP.

Q40: (Page 121) Section L states all rates and factors percentages shall have no more than two decimal places. However, the Price Table is formatted for four. Please clarify.

A40: Changed to two (2) decimal places throughout.

Q41: (Pages 128-130) Section L contains contract clauses that appear to be misplaced.

Should they be in Section I?

A41: No – although the software calls them “Clauses”, these are actually provisions that provide information, notice, and/or instructions relevant to the proposal phase of the acquisition and will not appear in the resultant contract. They are properly placed in Section L – however, note that after further review of the Draft RFP they may not appear in the final document

Q42: (Pages 137-140) Section M appears to contain contract clauses which may be misplaced. Should they be in Section I?

A42: No – although the software calls them “Clauses”, these are actually provisions that provide information, notice, and/or instructions relevant to the proposal evaluation phase of the acquisition and will not appear in the resultant contract. They are properly placed in Section M – however, note that after further review of the Draft RFP they may not appear in the final document.

Q43: (Page 133, Para M-3.1.2) The sentence ends with a “:“ without a listing.

A43: The “listing” is the following 3 subparagraphs (M-3.1.2.1 through 3.1.2.3) identified with

“Aspect” at the start of the para title.

Q44: (Page 134, Para M-3.1.3) The sentence ends with a “:“ without a listing. Please review.

A44: The “listing” is the following 3 paragraphs (M-3.1.4 through 3.1.6) identified with

“Aspect” at the start of the para title.

Q45: (Page 135, Para M-3.2.7) The last sentence does not end with a “.” Please review.

A45: The period has been added to the end of the sentence.

Q46: (Page 136) Please clarify what information concerning price variation will be shared with the technical evaluation team. Please clarify whether the “appropriate personnel” are technical evaluators or contracting personnel or both.

A46: The information sought will be used by both government contracting and technical evaluation personnel in the attempt to clarify any potential unbalanced pricing issue or concern.

The “appropriate personnel” conducting any exchange or communication with the offeror to obtain that information will be the Contracting Officer – who is the only person authorized to initiate contact once the Source Selection process begins.

Q47: (Page 136) Please clarify what “yardstick” will be used to measure whether a price is low. Will it be compared to an Independent Government Estimate (IGE) or compared to the prices of all offerors.

A47: The prices will be compared to the IGCE and the price of other offerors, but the government may or may not rely on either of those comparisons to determine the competitive range.

Q48: (Page 136, Paras M-3.3.2 & M-3.3.3) Please review these two paragraphs. They appear to be conflicting. M-3.3.2 states all option periods are included in the total overall price. M-3.3.3 states all CLINs plus 50% of Option 4 for optional extension of services.

Please confirm that ALL CLINS will be totaled for evaluate the total overall price and that no other government scenarios (i.e. removal of some CLINs due to decreased probability of exercise) will be utilized for prime evaluation.

A48: The statement in Paragraph M-3.3.3 means that the evaluated price of the 5000-series

CLINs for an optional extension of services of six months or less will be one-half of the price proposed for the 4000-series CLINs for Option Year 4, including the proposed cost for all potential growth sites. The total evaluated price of the proposal is the sum of the total proposed price for a full extension of 6 months (the 5000 series CLINs), total proposed price for all option years including potential growth CLINs (the 1000 through 4000 series CLINs) and the total proposed price of the Base Year including potential growth and transition CLINs. NOTE:

Inclusion of potential growth and optional period CLINs in the evaluated price does not obligate the Government to exercise any optional CLIN after contract award.

Q49: (Q&A #33) Please clarify how the Government will determine compliance with the

Limitations on Subcontracting clause.

A49: Since this is a Small Business Set-Aside for Services, paragraph (c)(1) of the clause applies and the onus is on the Offeror to comply. For the evaluation, the Government will look for documentation that “at least 50%” of the cost for personnel will be charged to the prime. After award, if that does not remain the case appropriate action will be pursued.

Q50: (PWS) Is there a Maintenance Delay Code (Non-Chargeable Delay Time) for Host

Nation operational release delays?

A50: Yes; App-B, MX Delay Code “G” - Other delays, non-chargeable: Used when no other delay code is applicable. Required comment: specify delay details and reason it is non-chargeable delay time.

Q51: (PWS) Will copies of the MASS Daily Status Reports for the last 6-12 months be provided for review?

A51: Yes.

Q52: (PWS/Apdx I) Will a list of current equipment with active warranties be provided?

A52: We will provide a current list prior to final RFP. The Appendix I list posted was current as of 2009. The list of GFP in the files attached to Appendix G was current to 2013. Colombia assets are present because we repair all repairable assets in the Colombia program.

Q53: (Apdx A) What is the scope of any effort required for locations with “X” in the box?

A53: No requirement for the Colombia integrated sites. Responsibilities for Costa Rica and the

Dominican Republic are as described in the PWS.

Q54: (Apdx I) Are the PME, TMDE, Vehicle and Tool items inventoried on 8/15/2008 as consumables correct?

A54: All items have a current inventory completed by current contractor and Government Dec

2012. There are 3 categories of property, Equipment (includes PME, TMDE, Vehicles and some tools), Repairables (radar/COMM assets that need to be repaired) and consumables. The

Appendix I posted with the draft RFP was current as of 2009; the list of GFP shown in the files attached to Appendix G were current to 2013. A current GFP list will be posted with the RFP.

Q55: (Apdx I) Will a current Government Furnished Equipment inventory be provided for review? The inventory is prior to significant program asset realignments. (transfer ownership of the Colombian radar systems to Colombia, transfer of Dobbins assets to support contractor, Ecuador disengagement, UYQ-509 purchase, disposition of identified items, transfer of the support contract to the current contractor, integration of Dominican

Republic, integration of Costa Rica, integration of Jamaica, etc…)

A55: We will provide a current list prior to final RFP. The list of GFP attached to Appendix G was current to 2013. Colombia assets are present because we repair all repairable assets in the

Colombia program. There are some assets such as NTRD etc. in countries mentioned above, no involvement by contractor; however, we maintain all assets that support MASS program in contractor system so as to have program wide visibility.

Q56: (Apdx I) Define * and XXXX usage in Nomenclature and Locations.

A56: Resulted from changing Excel spreadsheets to PDF for posting to FedBizOps. We’ll address with final RFP

Q57: (Apdx J) Is there any Real Property at the Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ location?

A57: No.

Q58: (Apdx N) Are these recommendations for additional force protection security still the same now that the radar sites belong to the Colombians?

A58: The contractor’s responsibility is for the security of their personnel. The site security responsibility belongs to the FAC. The information in Appendix N is somewhat outdated but may still be used for the proposal. New security studies will be undertaken by the MILGP. Any changes to the contractor’s proposed and accepted security posture necessitated by the new studies will be negotiated separately.

Q59: (Apdx N) Who is responsible for the security tasks identified in paragraphs e.2) on page 6, d.2) on page 10 and e.1) on page 14.

A59: These responsibilities are for the contractor. The weapons and ammunition only apply to the security vehicle driver at San Jose and Riohacha. There is no weapons/ammunition requirement or vehicle/driver requirement for the other three sites.

Q60: (Apdx N) Are the Contract Security Personnel identified in e.2) on page 17 part of the

PWS?

A60: Yes. It’s only one position and does not carry the same name. See para 4.4.2.

Q61: (Apdx N) Are the costs of any ordered evacuation from any site reimbursable? Only

Rio Hacha is identified as reimbursable.

A61: Yes. Any additional costs incurred as a result of an ordered evacuation would be reimbursable.

Q62: (Apdx N) Who maintains the commercial closed circuit camera system at Marandua, San Jose and Tres Esquinas?

A62: The FAC.

Q63: (Apdx O) Will the applicable Host Nation Agreements be available in the Bidder‟s

Library?

A63: Yes.

Q64: (Apdx R) Are the Environmental Protection Plan and Spill Notification Reports required now that the radar sites belong to the Colombians?

A64: Yes. They are required IAW PWS paras 3.3.11.1 and 3.3.11.2.

Q65: Will photographs be authorized during site visits?

A65: Cameras are not allowed by the FAC on their sites.

Q66: Is a clearance request submission in the SPOT system and Country/Theater clearance authorization required for participation in the pre-proposal conference and site visits?

A66: No SPOT submission required; however, country/theater clearance authorization is required, and the CO requested traveler information for this in August.

Q67: Are AT/FP, ISOPREP, SERE 100.1 LEVEL A and HUMAN RIGHTS AWARENESS training required for participation in the pre-proposal conference and site visits?

A67: No.

Q68: The revised RFP posted in 24 Oct 13 added a statement “…meets the basic PWS requirements and standards…” to sections M-1.2 and M-3.1. Question is; does the added phrase "meets the basic PWS requirements and standards" mean across the entire PWS or just the PWS requirements within the aspect?

A68: Yes, the added phrase "meets the basic PWS requirements and standards" mean the PWS requirements within the aspect.

Q69: After reviewing PWS paragraph 2.3.2.6, are offerors required to include material, equipment, transport, and labor costs to construct a site in our pricing for that specific

Deployed radar site CLIN pricing or is pricing for this CLIN labor only?

A69: The CLIN pricing should only include the O&M cost. All site preparation costs will be negotiated separately as a special project.

9 December 2013 - Update:

Q70: PWS Paragraph 4.2.6 is blank?

A70: This is a “header” paragraph (with a title) to ensure the information in paragraphs 4.2.6.1 through 4.2.6.3.2 are at the correct level for the requirement documented.

Q71: Initially Paragraph 2.1.1.9 discusses Warehouse and Repair Facilities. It is then immediately followed by 2.1.1.10, Hours of Operation, which states: “The contractor shall perform the services required under this contract 24/7. The Bogotá, Colombia Host Nation

Control Center (HNCC) Satellite Communications (SATCOM) terminal shall be manned on a 24/7 basis.” In paragraph 2.1.2.2.4, it states “The contractor shall provide a US citizen technician on standby during non-duty hours for recall within one hour for Key West

SATCOM location.” What are the standard work hours for the Key West facility?

A71: The Key West SATCOM does not have to be manned 24/7. There are no standard work hours established. It’s up to the bidder to propose the workforce and schedule to accomplish the requirements. During times when the facility isn’t manned, a standby person must be designated.

Q72: PWS paragraph 2.3.7.3, General Maintenance states “Perform reverse engineering on

MASS equipment and systems when tasked by the CO.” Regarding any previous „reverse engineered fabrication modifications‟ performed by the incumbent or other contractor, will those documents and other technical drawings be made available as a GFI item without proprietary right restrictions?

A72: The government would have either “Unlimited Rights” or “Government Purpose Rights” for any reverse engineering paid for by the government or produced using GFE.

Q73: Some paragraphs indicate the requirement to be treated as either „cost reimbursable‟ or „fixed price‟ or sometimes both depending upon the situation. Would it be possible to standardize the process by separately marking each paragraph with a CR or a FP?

A73: Para 1.3 states that everything is FP unless designated otherwise, although there are also several instances where it is stated redundantly that services are FP. We can answer any specific questions about whether a service is CR or FP.

Q74: Reference Addendum 1, paragraph 4.1.2: As stated: “Inventories: The contractor shall support annual joint government, FAC, and contractor inventories of all FAC PME, PME spares, and PME consumables at all FAC locations.” We would like a greater understanding of the level of effort expected to satisfy this requirement. Will the government define what „support‟ means in regard to the inventory activity? The requirement of “all FAC PME, PME spares, and PME consumables at all FAC locations” appears to be unbounded. Will the government consider limiting this requirement to only those FAC locations specified in Appendix A, Table A-1 Lines 1-5, and Table A-2 Line 2, and Table A-3 Lines 8-12? Will the government consider limiting the „support‟ to only

MASS related PME, spares and consumables?

A74: Support for Colombia JI includes 1 person for 25 days “Cost reimbursable” travelling with the team to the sites/doing some work in Bogota and assisting with the inventory as needed for

FAC locations” FAC’s warehouse in Bogota and the five radar sites (Marandua, Tres Esquinas, San Jose, Riohacha, and San Andres) it also includes the HNCC and contractor warehouse in

Bogota. In addition separate Joint Inventories are done at each active site, currently (Guatemala

(2 Days), Costa Rica (1 day), the PMO warehouse in Melbourne (1 week) and earth station in

Tucson (done jointly during maintenance visit)). All support is for MASS related PME spares and consumables.

Q75: Reference Addendum 1, paragraph 4.3.1: As stated: “The contractor shall provide a level III-a armored vehicle and driver at Riohacha and San Jose sites to support the movement of US government and contractor personnel between the airport and the site and in the local area when performing official business. Contractor security force personnel shall meet the following minimum special qualifications:” Will these vehicles and the drivers only be required during site visits by the MASS contractor or must they be available to any US government personnel requiring their use at any time?

A75: It also includes any US government or US government-sponsored contractors at any time as approved by the MASS government program manager.

Q76: Reference Paragraph 4.1.2.5.6: As stated in the second sentence: “The contractor shall perform routine country visits to the JDF facility housing the networking/display equipment included in this effort every six months following acceptance to perform preventive maintenance.

A76: Yes. Routine visits are required every six months for preventive maintenance. These visits are fixed price.

Q77: Reference Paragraph 4.1.2.5.3: Can the government please state the location within

Panama of the 3 radar sites? We will need this information to estimate travel requirements.

A77: The data from the three radar sites feed into a central ATC location in Panama City, which is where the integration equipment that would need to be maintained is located. There is no requirement to visit the three radar sites.

Q78: Reference Appendix G, attachment C, Purchase Orders, FY10-13 file. What is the definition of the Purchase Order Review item “Sale” & “Evaluation” which together equate to +75% of PO expenses?

A78: Evaluations are MASS Depot Repair cost for initial evaluations of parts. Upon verification of asset estimated repairs, contractor is reimbursed for services rendered to repair the asset.

Repair of assets shall not exceed 75% of the total cost of the asset. Government considers those assets Beyond Economical Repair.

Q79: Reference DRAFT Appendix A, Site Locations, the table Current Integrated Sites shows contractor support requirements in three Dominican Republic locations: Punta

Cana, Las Americas, and Puerto Plata. However, Puerto Plata is not mentioned or referred to in PWS paragraph 4.1.2.5.1, regarding service requirements in DR, or in any other section of the PWS. Is Puerto Plata, DR an active site to be supported and is it like

Punta Cana and Las Americas where we perform routine visits every six months?

A79: The only site that needs to be visited is Las Americas. The other two sites have modems that were gifted to the Dominican Republic and these sites have no contractor requirement. The

PWS and the table in Appendix A will be adjusted to remove those two sites.

Q80: U.S. State Department website for Indexes of Living Costs Abroad

(http://aoprals.state.gov/Web920/location.asp?menu_id=95) provides the following uplifts for overseas work locations. Uplifts are not referenced in the RFP, but are they going to be allowed as an ODC item?

A80: It is up to the offeror as to your business strategy how you price the FFP portion of the contract. We are just looking for the lowest price technically acceptable.

Q81: PWS paragraph 3.6 states drawings must be updated within 30 days of configuration changes, but paragraph 3.6.1 states 60 days. We believe the 30 day requirement is unrealistic for anything beyond a minor change and the requirement should be 60 days.

A81: PWS paragraph 3.3.6 should be 60 days. We will update the PWS.

Q82: Please confirm that proposals do not need to address PWS section 3.0 Operations and

Maintenance along with associated subparagraphs based on response of a previous question during industry days and instructions in RFP section L-7. In addition, based on

RFP section L-7, PWS sections 4.4 and Addendum 1 do not need to be addressed except for program management and logistics in support of the FAC. Finally, PWS sections 4.2 and

4.3 except ITAR are not addressed in RFP sec L-7.3.2; however, RFP section L attachment

4 lists PWS sections 4.2 and 4.3. Please clarify.

A82: Operations and Maintenance is not identified as a separate evaluation sub-factor.

However, it would be difficult to address all of the sub-factors without addressing what is in paragraph 3.0. Para 4.3 covers parts obsolescence, which is included in sec L-7.3.2.

Q83: Appendix M, Foreign Travel Clearance states “PRIOR to submitting a clearance request in, a request must be submitted in the SPOT system”. In SPOT, only one deployment request can be entered at a time (verified via SPOT helpdesk, ticket 12816302).

If the person is currently in SPOT for travel, and they are scheduled for another deployment, a second request cannot be added in SPOT until the current travel is cleared.

In this case, what is the procedure for requesting a clearance?

A83: Ensure the Country/Theater clearance request is sent in the required time. Annotate on the e-mail that the traveling member is in SPOT for travel on another request. SPOT will be updated upon their return.

Q84: The Service Summary item 2 states Trip Reports are due within 3 days after the trip;

please clarify if these are calendar or business days?

A84: It should read 3 business days.

Q85: Will utility costs be cost reimbursable for the radar sustainment requirement outlined in PWS paragraph 4.1.2.7?

A85: Yes

Q86: Is DBA insurance required on the new MASS Program for all internationally deployed personnel even though personnel are not station on U.S. Military installations?

A86: Yes.

Q87: For volume II, Past Performance, does the PPI worksheet qualify as a table to permit the use of 10 point font or is it required to be 12 point as with the main proposal text?

A87: Yes, the PPI worksheet qualifies as a table and permits the use of 10 point font.

Q88: It is our understanding that under the new rules created by the 2013 NDAA, a small business may meet its 50% performance obligations by subcontracting to a “similarly situated entity.” In other words, a small business may satisfy its 50% performance requirements by subcontracting to another small business. This has not been codified into the FAR yet and it is our understanding that it is up to the contracting office if and how to implement. We wanted to find out what is ACC position with respect to this new law specifically for the MASS contract being a Total Small Business set aside.

A88: Until a new law is codified into the FAR by a Federal Acquisition Circular I cannot deviate from the FAR. I checked with our legal team to make sure it was not up to the contracting office on how to implement and they confirmed we cannot implement until the FAR is updated.

Q89: REFERENCES: Section B, CLIN 0011; PWS Section D; and Draft RFP Paragraph

M-3.3.2. CLIN 0011 Transition is a FFP CLIN and states that “The contractor shall perform all transition activities IAW PWS Section D and their submitted Transition Plan incorporated as PWS Appendix T. Period of Performance (30 days): 1 to 30 Sep 14.” PWS

Section D indicates non-incumbent bidders may “price the cost of movement of the spares and support equipment currently located at the Program Management Office

(PMO)/warehouse to other proposed location(s) as FP under the Transition CLIN for

FY14.” However, paragraph M-3.3.2 of the Draft RFP clearly states that “Price will be evaluated on the total overall price”. The total evaluated price consists of the total proposed extended price for all the firm fixed price and cost-reimbursable CLINs for the

Transition period and basic contract period plus all option periods to include the possible

6-month extension allowed under FAR clause 52.217-8 and the optional site CLINs.” It appears the incumbent has an unfair price advantage over non-incumbent bidders who must include the price of moving equipment from the incumbent‟s warehouse to their warehouse. Please review the applicability of the transition period pricing in the total price evaluation.

A89: The government considers the cost of movement of the spares and support equipment currently located at the Program Management Office (PMO)/warehouse to other proposed location(s) a cost of doing business and does not see it as an unfair price advantage over non-incumbent bidders because the incumbent had to pay to movement cost at the start of the current contract.

Q90: Is there a new estimate release date for the Final RFP?

A90: Yes, we hope to have the Final RFP posted on 11 Dec 13 but no later than 13 Dec 13. We expect to have the pre-proposal conference on 18 Dec 13 in the afternoon, but proposals are now expected to be due on 17 Jan 14.

18 December 2013 - Questions the pre-proposal conference:

Q91: Who is paying for the Frequency Clearances? Are we pricing? Are there not government people currently doing this?

A91: Frequency Clearances will come from HQ USSOUTHCOM J638 should NOT be priced by the offeror. This process should be transparent to the contractor.

Q92: What are the current specific databases and format used for the Management integration system (MIS)?

A92: The current web based system runs on top of a SQL database.

6 January 2014 - Update:

Q93: PWS 2.1.1.8 Management Information System (MIS) states, “The Government COR shall have full access to the MIS with no seat limitation”. Software prices are determined by the number of seats. Please provide a minimum and maximum number of seats.?

A93: As long as all the CORs have unlimited access to the MIS, there is no minimum seat requirement. The maximum number of users is 50 (see question 3 above).

Q93: In PWS 2.1.2 Human Resources please clarify the statement, “200% task coverage after 90 days”. (Is it the Government‟s intent for a contractor to cover the tasks with a qualified workforce with 200% coverage?) Please also clarify/define the word “certified” in this paragraph.?

A93: 200% task coverage means every task must have at least two personnel who can perform it.

“Certified” means individuals’ training records must show official documentation of the training they’ve had.

Q94: Please clarify the number of Key Personnel the Government desires in the PMO?

A94: All management personnel would be key personnel. The positions are proposed by the offeror and it is up to the offeror to propose the number of Key Personnel that meet the minimum requirements of the PWS.

Q95: Please confirm all current MASS documents have been converted to a digital/electronic format?

A95: No, many of the TOs and manuals have not been converted to digital format.

Q96: Please confirm the 2.2.3 Master Library is stored on the Document Management

Information System (DMIS) outlined in 2.1.1.8.4. Please clarify what documents in the

Master Library current exists in electronic format and what document type?

A96: Yes, the electronic documents are stored on the DMIS. The hardcopy documents in the bidders’ library only exist currently in hardcopy format. The electronic documents are available on a compact disk. Instructions for making an appointment to visit the bidders’ library were previously provided in Section L of the RFP. Likewise, instructions for obtaining a copy of the electronic documents were previously provided.

Q97: Table 1 Cost Reimbursable Expenses and Approval Thresholds only references PWS

2.3.1. However, it appears some items under 2.3.2 through 2.3.7 may also be CR. Please clarify?

A97: PWS 2.3.2 through 2.3.7 are Future Optional Requirements that may be performed on a cost reimbursable or firm fixed price basis but will required a negotiation and modification to the contract while 2.3.1 Special Projects are Future Optional Requirements that are smaller in scale and will be negotiated and approved by the contracting officer and will not require a modification to the contract and is why 2.3.1 was include in Table 1.

Q98: PWS 3.2.1.5.1 states, “labor cost associated with the cutover event shall be CR in accordance with paragraph 2.2.4”. Please clarify whether 3.2.1.5.2 through 3.2.1.5.4 is also considered CR?

A98: The only other requirement not associated with labor for the cutover that was referenced in those paragraphs is updating the cutover instructions, which is CR.

Q99: Please clarify whether the Functional Libraries must exist in hardcopy,…