UASOCS_Draft_RFP_Comment_Q A_Matrix__--_27_Jan_15.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Unmanned Aircraft System Operations Center Support (UASOCS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA4890-14-R-0018
About this file
Updated Q A. additional questions start at yellow line Ques 37 thru Ques 67.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Unmanned Aircraft System Operations Center Support (UASOCS) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Industry Questions
| Document(s) Reviewed: | Draft RFP | ||
| No. | Document | Comments / Questions | Disposition |
A = Accepted (comment accepted verbatim) R = Rejected (comment entirely rejected; provide a brief explanation for R disposition) P = Partially accepted/rejected (comment was either accepted or rejected in part; provide a brief explanation for P disposition)
| 1. | PWS | |||
| Sec L&M | 1. Data Management. Para 2.8.2 of the draft PWS states, “the contractor shall provide an unclassified computer-aided data management system through a contractor-hosted website at contract start,” but there is not mention of this requirement or how this system will be evaluated in the draft RFP (Section L&M) | This will not be evaluated; however, the contractor will have to provide a DMS at contract start according to the PWS. | ||
| 2. | Draft RFP | 2. The DRFP requires three plans be submitted: Maintenance Control Plan, HR plan, and Transition Plan. Recommend the Government consider having these Plans be provided as attachments with an appropriate page count (10-15 pages for each) that allows full details be provided. | No, all three plans will be included with 60-page count | |
| Industry Day Q&A | ||||
| Draft RFP | 3. Industry Day Question 8. “Resumes are only required for OCONUS personnel due to TESA requirements.” Please provide instructions or guidance in the RFP on how Industry will provide the required resumes in our proposal for the RPA Satellite Support at Ramstein to support TESA approval. | Resumes are not required at this point with the proposals. The resumes will be required upon award of the contract. | ||
| Industry Day Q&A | ||||
| Draft RFP | 4. Industry Day Question 43. “Past Performance volume will be required prior to the other volumes.” Please clarify is this requirement has changed. The Draft RFP does not specifically discuss the timeline for submission of PP | Past Performance will be required at the same time as the other two volumes | ||
| Industry Day Q&A | ||||
| Draft RFP | 5. Industry Day Question 68. “PWS reflects what is currently being done to date. New will be the reachback sites and the 556 TES.” With the addition of the 556 TES, will the Government update the PWS and associated appendices that provide mission-specfic support for the 556 TES | Government is currently working to include 556 TES in the recompete. Review the final RFP for any new information. | ||
| Industry Day Q&A | ||||
| Draft RFP | 6. Industry Day Question 126.”All support services at Kadena are provided to employees and dependents.” Is support services provided at Ramstein for employees and dependents? | Offerors should refer to PWS 2.1.3 and URL listed for additional information | ||
| Sec L&M | 7. In Section L Under Aspect 1 – Management and Integration, the Government is requesting a proposed …”manning levels and skill mix of program management function.” The corresponding Section M for Aspect 1 – Management and Integration, states the evaluation will be to the ..”manning levels by position, skill sets by position, …and cohesive functional relationships to execute program requirements.” Is the manning levels and skill mix exclusive to management or is the government looking for manning levels and skill mix for the entire organization? | For the entire organization that supports UASOCS. Language in L will be updated to state this. | ||
| 3. | PWS | |||
| App Q | 8. The RPA SATCOM relay sites listed in the PWS (EUR-2, PAC-1 and EUR-3) do not match with Appendix Q (EUR-1A, EUR-1B, EUR-2, PAC-1, PAC-2); are there 3 RPA SATCOM Relay Sites or 5? | Appendix Q will be update to correspond to the PWS. There are 3 RPA SATCOM Relay Sites...EUR-2, PAC-1 and EUR-3 | ||
| 4. | PWS | |||
| App Q | 9. The SATCOM Relay Sites in the PWS are annotated with ‘CY16’. Appendix Q shows FY’s 13, 14, and 15, with the UASOCS CLIN Pricing Sheet Updated rev 1 showing Sigonella RPA Satcom Relay O&M as an Option year 2 CLIN. How do these various sites align between PWS, Appendix Q, and UASOCS CLINs Pricing Sheet rev 1? | Appendix Q will be update to correspond to the PWS and CLIN structure | ||
| 5. | PWS | 10. What is the location of EUR-2 (Southern Europe)? | Ramstein AB Germany | |
| 6. | Sec M | 11. Would the government clarify what criteria it evaluates Section M, para M-3.1.3.1 Aspect I: Transition Plan as an ‘effective procedure to hire, train, and certify non-incumbent personnel in the event hiring goals are not met to ensure uninterrupted service”? | There is a paragraph numbering error. Should be M-3.1.4.1. "Effective" ??? | |
| 7. | Sec M | 12. Reference Section M, para M-3.1.3.1 Aspect I: Transition Plan; would the government allocate a specific time frame to achieve hiring goals? | At contract start. The transition period will be used to achieve the hiring goals | |
| 8. | App E | 13. The government announced at the 8 Oct 14 Creech AFB Site Visit that the PEBs we were visiting and the 556 TES would now be added to the UASOCS re-compete contract. Appendix E does not list these facilities, but they are listed on the CLIN Pricing Sheet Updated rev 1 – Would the government provide clarification between CLIN Pricing Sheet and PWS Appendix E as to facilities to be priced and supported? | Appendix E will be updated to include PEB & 556 TES |
PEB is supported under CLINs 14, 18, & 19; 556 TES is under CLIN 27
| 9. | 14. With the increase in scope announced on 8 Oct 14 at the UASOCS Creech AFB Site Visit and the increase in Service Summary performance thresholds, would the government consider re-evaluating the acquisition strategy? | NO the strategy will be an LPTA | |
| 10. | App F | 15. Appendix F – Award Fee Plan: Annex 2 Evaluation Criteria, Definitions and Weights allots 40% of Award Fee to Technical Performance; Worksheet C in Annex 8 of the same appears to calculate based on 30% for Technical Performance - Would the government provide clarification on the different %’s and method of award fee calculation? | Government will correct. |
| 11. | Sec M | 16. By what criteria does the Government evaluate Section M, paragraph M-3.1.1.2 Aspect II: Human Resources (c.) to be an ‘effective approach’ to limiting and mitigating employee turnover and vacancies’ in an LPTA source selection? | "Effective" ???? |
| 12. | App K | 17. Reference Draft Appendix K, Is it the Government’s desire that Senior Network Engineer have both JNCIP and CCNP certifications, or is the governments desire to follow industry norms that these certifications are “either/or”? | Appendix K will be changed to "either/or" |
| 13. | App K | 18. Reference Draft Appendix K: Would the government provide what qualifies as “Certified Internetwork Expert” and how it will evaluate 7 years of experience? | Government will review the qualification summary of the proposed candidates. |
| 14. | App N | 19. Can the government clarify the security clearance requirements in Appendix N for the 26 WPS and 556 TES? | Appendix will be updated to include 26 WPS and 556 TES |
The minimum required security clearance is TS/SCI
| 15. | App O | 20. Appendix O, Para 1.1 network listing appears to contain systems that are not traditionally considered as networking equipment. Would the Government provide further clarification between Network Equipment and Software/Systems to be serviced by the PWS? | Appendix O lists the level support required by the PWS. All hardware and software supported by this contract are listed on FBO. |
| 16. | Sec L | 21. Previous questions from the May 2014 UASOCS Industry Day stated a resume requirement for TESA clearances. Would the government clarify whether or not resumes are to be included in a proposal? | Resumes are not required at this point with the proposals. The resumes will be required upon award of the contract. |
| 17. | App O | 22. Does Appendix O para 2.1 list all the networks to be serviced by the PWS? | Yes |
| 18. | PWS | 23. Given the 99.998% system O&M performance standard required in the Table 1.5 Service Summary, will the government develop specified risk factors that will be evaluated as a Technical Factor? | The Government will not develop any risk factors to be evaluated. |
| 19. | 24. Based on the stated criteria, the ability to meet the stringent Operational Availability of the UAS systems and sensors is of the highest priority to the end user and the Government. As a result, it is most logical to weigh the technical capabilities of the respondents prior to making a price selection. Therefore, will the government adapt their evaluation criteria to include technical capability and past performance with a weight more indicative of National Command Authority objectives, compared to a cost only criteria? | No, the Government is not going to weight the factors since this is an LPTA source selection. | |
| 20. | PWS | 25. Will the Government ensure coordinated risk management and mitigation have been exercised supporting the technical acceptability rate of 99.998%. | The Government will not develop any risk factors to be evaluated. After award the rate will be verified by COR oversight. |
| 21. | Sec L&M | 26. How does the Government plan to evaluate the offer’s capability for meeting product/services and process technical, cost, and schedule requirements while addressing and controlling the risks inherent in the program? | The LPTA process is an acceptable/unacceptable process. |
| 22. | Sec L |
L-8.3
| Atch 1 (PPI) | 27. PPI Contract Reference Sheet (Attachment 1). Does not define what “major or critical” teammate/partner is, please clarify/define. | “Major or critical” teammate/partner is one that performs 51% or more of the contract being referenced. | ||
| 23. | Sec L | |||
| L-9.1.2 | 28. Offerors may propose ceilings for its indirect rates, we do not believe this is applicable b/c everything appears to be FFP based. If so, please clarify. | This would refer to the cost CLINs. | ||
| 24. | Schedule B | |||
| Pricing | 29. Both CLINs_Pricing_Sheet and Section_B_CLINs file show CLIN 0001 (Base Year award fee) as $700K, but the award fee plan identifies the initial/evaluation period (including transition) to be $450K. Please verify if the fill-in for CLIN 0001is supposed to be $800K? | The $450K located at 6.2 of the Award Fee Plan is for the 8-month period which includes the 2-month transition and 6-month base period of performance. CLIN 0001 will be increased to $800K. All options XXX1 CLINS will be $700K. | ||
| 25. | 30. Are there any CBAs in place on the existing contract(s)? | No. | ||
| 26. | PWS | |||
| 2.8.7 | 31. Since scope include repairs, requesting the Govt to provide access to the historical metrics or recommend the Govt to provide a “plug in” cost for annual repairs. | No the Govt will not provide "plug-in" costs for annual repairs. | ||
| 27. | 32. Do you have access to the Special Access Program (SAP) materials and information for 17 RS, 22 RS and 867 RS requirements? If so, how quickly can non-incumbent staff be briefed for access to SAP and what is the process during transition period? | Yes, the Govt does have access to SAP materials. This information will be released following contract award. Non-incumbent personnel will be in-briefed during the transition period based upon proper clearance levels and need to know. | ||
| 28. | 33. Request the Govt to identify what requirements constitute staff requiring DoD 8570.01M certifications and what staff will require the various levels of certification? | All personnel managing the network must be DoD 8570.01M Certified. See Appendix K. | ||
| 29. | RFP L&M | 34. As part of the source selection process, would the Air Force consider the methodology we offer as an example in Attachment 1 of this letter which integrates execution risk into the Air Force source selection evaluation process for the UASOCS major performance work areas? | No. | |
| 30. | RFP L&M | 35. What is an equivalent qualification/credential for PMP for the Program Manager? Would 5 years as a Program Manager (on contracts of similar size, scope and complexity) be an acceptable substitution? | Yes | |
| 31. | RFP L&M | 36. Can a classified program for past performance be used as long as the content of the write up and PPIQ are unclassified? | Yes | |
| 32. | App K | 37.Can the Government define equivalents for the following: PMP Certified or equivalent, JUNIPER or equivalent, MCSE or equivalent and MCITP, MCSA or equivalent? | PMP - see Ques 30. For Microsoft go to microsoft website and look up requirements for MCSE, MCITP and MCSA. For JUNIPER drop equivalent. | |
| 33. | App K | 38. Can the Govt clarify are Senior Systems Administrators required to poss all or only one of the listed Microsoft certifications: MCSE or equivalent, MCITP, MCSA or equivalent? | Only require one. | |
| 34. | PWS 3.1.1 | 39. Please confirm the maintenance level required for TFT/FSST/SETSS is O-level. Conflict 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. | O-level is required. PWS 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 will be deconflicted. | |
| 35. | Bidder's Library | 40. With the addition of Ramstein and Kadena will the Government make the SOPs, drawings, etc available on the Bidder's Library for viewing? | No a site visit was provided. | |
| 36. | RFP | 41. The Government has not adequately described the level of effort to support the daily activities of the UASOCS requirement. What are the current workforce numbers at each site? | No the Government will not provide workforce numbers. | |
| 37. | CLINs | 42.Would the Government consider changing the CLIN pricing structure to geographically based vice operational unit based? | No the Government will not consider changing the pricing structure. | |
| 38. | Contractor Support Services PWS 7.0 | 43. Will the Government post a listing of offered services for Ramstein and Sigonella as well as Kadena? | PWS has been updated to include this information with the exception of Sigonella which has not yet been stood up. | |
| 39. | Ramstein Site Visit | 44. Will the Government post a listing of the Ramstein Site Visit Attendees? | A list was posted to FBO on 14 Jan 2015. | |
| 40. | Eur1 workload data | 45. When does the Government intend to post EUR1 workload data? | Workload data has been posted to FBO. | |
| 41. | Licenses | 46. Will the Government provide a list of inventory and numbers of current Hardware and Software licenses including classification level by individual site? | Hardware has been posted to FBO. Software was posted with the exception of the SATCOM sites. The Government will see if software list used at Ramstein and Kadena can be made available to industry. | |
| 42. | PWS Table 1.5 Service Summary Success Factor 3, Notes 1-3 | 47. Please confirm the definition of a "major outage"? | Yes notes 1-4 define a major outage. A complete loss as defined. | |
| 43. | PWS 2.3 Evaluation | 48. Can the Government provide a rough order of magnitude of the frequency of a "normal government audit" as a basis for accurate estimation of expected management expense? | Audits are done on a monthly basis (or as required by the Government) with inspection items selected on a random basis. See PWS 2.1 and 2.2 inspections on a periodic basis. | |
| 44. | Pricing CLINs 0028-0030. | 49. Could the Government provide a location and a required timeframe for these potential ops centers? | Notional location is Creech AFB, NV. Timeframe would be TBD. | |
| 45. | MOAs | 50. Since the Government is not providing any plug numbers denoting types of support when will the MOAs be posted to FBO? | The revised PWS has provided types of services in support at the SATCOM Relay sites. | |
| 46. | Appendix O Mission Systems, Section 2.2 Hardware | 51. In Appendix O a reference is made to Appendix D. When will Appendix D be released to Industry? | Appendix D was posted as CDRL 13/14 ??? The Equipment list previously posted to FBO. As a "living" document this list under goes continous updating. Any list is a snapshot in time. | |
| 47. | L-7.4.1.2.2B | 52. Does the Government have tools in place today which support real-time awareness? If so, please provide names of tools, version numbers and networks on which the tools are used. | Yes the Government has tools in place however it is up to the contractor to descibe their approach to support real time awareness. Section A para 2.7. | |
| 48. | L.7.4.1.2.3 | 53. Does the Government currently implement tools to monitor video quality throughout the architecture? If so, please provide the names of the tools, version numbers and networks on which the tools are installed. | Yes the Government has tools in place to monitor video quality however it is up to the contractor to describe its Air Force approved approach to monitor video quality. Section A para 2.7. | |
| 49. | Appendix M-1.2.2 page 1 and PWS B.1.5 pages 34-36 | 54. Confirm calculation of the 99.998% metric begins once the rootcause for error is positively identified within the UASOCS demarcation Point. Also please provide a listing of methodologies, tools and data sources used to calculate Down/Red Time for each of the five systems. | Yes once rootcause for error is identified as within the UASOCS demarcation point calculation of Down/Red Time begins and stops when issue is resolved. | |
| 50. | PWS 4.1.6 page 21 | 55. Confirm if CRO or user duties is required or both? The AFI 33-201 V2 provides requirements for both. Will a list for each COMSEC role for each site be provided? | Duties will be based on location. A CRO is required at Ramstein and Kadena . User duties at all other locations. A list will be provided at contract start during transition. | |
| 51. | CLINs Appendix Q table in Section 3.1 | 56. Appendix 2 lists PAC2 as a supported SATCOM relay site in FY15, however there is no CLIN in Section B for PAC-2. Confirm the Government is not requiring pricing for PAC-2. | There is no PAC-2. The Table in Section3.1 of App Q will be revised and updated. | |
| 52. | L-9.1.1 and Section B OCONUS CLINs | 57. Will the Government provide an acceptable cost for HOLA/COLA/DODDS per employee for OCONUS operations for Germany and Japan? | The HOLA/COLA/DODDS costs are all IAW Department of State rates which fluctuates; therefore, we will have a separate CR CLIN for all OCONUS allowances. See revised CLIN structure in Section B and the pricing worksheet. | |
| 53. | PWS 2.1.5.1 | 58. How many exercises and special events are conducted each year? Can the Government define the requirement further as to what resources are required to support this requirement? Can the Government further define "add or subtract equipment and software.. at any time" so that an estimate can be made in a fixed price enviornment? | Should a training squadron be activated to 24/7 status then this will be paid from the Government directed overtime CLIN if of short duration. A sustained duration would be seperately negotiated. PWS will be revised to reflect this. | |
| 54. | Section B Cost CLINs | 59. Can the Government confirm the formula to be used for Total Price column is (Govt Unit Price*(1+ Handling Rate)= Total Price? | No. The Government has now dropped handling rate on CR CLINs An Estimated amount is being used as a plug number for CR CLINs. All rates will be negotiated upon use of CR CLIN. | |
| 55. | L-9.1.1 | 60. Clarify which CR CLIN would account for OCONUS Travel, DBA Insurance and differential pay? | The CLIN structure will be revised. DBA Insurance will be a CR CLIN. OCONUS Travel will be a CR CLIN. OCONUS COLA/HOLA/DODDS and differential pay will be an additional CR CLIN. See revised CLIN structure in Section B and the pricing worksheet. | |
| 56. | PWS 2.4.2 Section B CLINs | 61. Will the Government provide the requirements and timing for optional CLINs0029,0030 and 0031 so they may be adequately scoped? | See answer question 49. | |
| 57. | PWS 4.2.13.1 | 62. Will the Government provide a detailed list of equipment affected by ITAR? | There is no ITAR requirement for the UASOCS program. The PWS has been updated. | |
| 58. | PWS 4.2.13.1 | 63. Can the Government clarify which paragraphs in CFR Title 22, Chapter 1, Sub-Chapter M and N that apply to the work contained in the PWS? | There is no ITAR requirement for the UASOCS program. The PWS has been updated. | |
| 59. | Section M 3.1.3.1 | 64. Section M -3.1.3.1 appears to be a numbering error. It follows M-3.1.4 Subfactor D: transition. Should this paragraph be numbered M-3.1.4.1? | PWS numbering error has been corrected in latest PWS version. | |
| 60. | L-8.3 | 65. Published documentation does not specify a threshold criteria for what constitutes a "major" or "critical" subcontractor (e.g. 10%, 20% etc of the effort). Will the Government please clarify the criteria to determine if a sub is major or critical? | There is no set percentage. It is up to the contractor to determine which of it's subcontractors are major or critical. | |
| 61. | Appendix Q | 66. Will the Government provide an updated Appendix Q prior to the Final RFP with new schedules to reflect current locations and status for EUR-1A, EUR-1B and Eur-2? | Appendix Q will be updated with Final RFP release. | |
| 62. | Appendix C | 67. Would the Government post the following TOs to GOVWIN: TO 31R2-4-1943 and TO 31R2-2TSC184-1? | No. The Government will not post these TOs to GOVWIN. | |
| 63. | ||||
| 64. | ||||
| 65. | ||||
| 66. | ||||
| 67. | ||||
| 68. | ||||
| 69. | ||||
| 70. |
UASOCS RECOMPETE COMMENT MATRIX
Page &P of &N
Blank
| Document(s) Reviewed: | |||||||
| No. | Reviewer | Document | Page # | Para # | Line # | Comments | Disposition |
A = Accepted (comment accepted verbatim) R = Rejected (comment entirely rejected; provide a brief explanation for R disposition) P = Partially accepted/rejected (comment was either accepted or rejected in part; provide a brief explanation for P disposition)
| 1. |
| 2. |
| 3. |
| 4. |
| 5. |
| 6. |
| 7. |
| 8. |
| 9. |
| 10. |
| 11. |
| 12. |
| 13. |
| 14. |
| 15. |
| 16. |
| 17. |
| 18. |
| 19. |
| 20. |
| 21. |
| 22. |
| 23. |
| 24. |
| 25. |
| 26. |
| 27. |
| 28. |
| 29. |
| 30. |
| 31. |
| 32. |
| 33. |
| 34. |
| 35. |
| 36. |
| 37. |
| 38. |
| 39. |
| 40. |
| 41. |
| 42. |
| 43. |
| 44. |
| 45. |
| 46. |
| 47. |
| 48. |
| 49. |
| 50. |
| 51. |
| 52. |
| 53. |
| 54. |
| 55. |
| 56. |
| 57. |
| 58. |
| 59. |
| 60. |
| 61. |
| 62. |
| 63. |
| 64. |
| 65. |
| 66. |
| 67. |
UASOCS RECOMPETE COMMENT MATRIX
Page &P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .