Q A_30Sep13.pdf

MOBILE AIR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (MASS)

INDUSTRY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

30 September 2013

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?

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.