Draft_RFP_Questions_and_Responses.pdf

Solicitation FA4890‐16‐R‐0032 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED REGARDING DRAFT RFP Page 1 of 4

Document Para # Question AMIC Response

Section L & M released on 22 Nov

Is this a typo or has it been changed back to 3 years and if yes please explain why?

Past Performance: The draft section L and M released on 22 Nov states PP recency is the previous 3 years. In the draft released 8 Sep 16 it states recency to be previous 5 years. This was a change from an earlier draft that said 3 years as well as feedback from industry for the 5 year need to open up the competitive pool.

This is not a typo. Three years of past performance will be evaluated.

Please clarify the number of days for transition.

Transition: In the draft PWS, sec D, para7.0 it states “Execute transition/phase‐in to ensure full contract performance within 105 days of contract award.” In both section L and M of the draft RFP it states “execute transition task in the mandated 120‐day timeframe…”

The PWS has been updated to reflect a 120‐day transition period.

PWS

Recompete 2.5.1

Please clarify; is it at Transition start or Contract start? If it is at Transition start, does the Government intend to have at least 30 days between award notification and Transition start in order for contingent offers with individual’s to be finalized and/or negotiations with incumbents to be accomplished?

Key Personnel: In the latest draft PWS para 2.5.1 has conflicting statements. “All key positions with the exception of Site Leads must be filled and personnel in position at Transition start.” The next sentence states: “All key positions must be filled and personnel in position at contract start.”

It is the Government's intention to award this contract at least 30 days prior to transition start. Updated PWS para. 2.5.1.

PWS

Recompete 4.12

Please clarify coordinate and define what support and projected workload.

Maintenance Management Analysis: Draft PWS para 4.12 states: RQ‐4 analysis support shall directly coordinate with and support the 69 RG at Grand Forks AFB, ND as required.”

The Contractor's analyst will need to provide information to the 69 RG as required by the 69 RG. This does not require the analyst to physically reside onsite at Grand Forks, but it does require the Contractor's analyst to continually contact and work with the necessary individuals within the 69 RG. The Government Program Office will also require occasional analysis support.

PWS

Recompete

1.1 & 4.2

The PWS makes several references to operating and maintaining C4ISR equipment.

QUESTION: Is this solely for the SETTS or is there an expectation that there will be more C4ISR equipment to maintain?

No. Please refer to Appendix K for C4ISR demarcation points.

PWS

Recompete 2.21.7

QUESTION: This requirement adds 3 combat lines to the contracted combat lines for up to 240 days each year. When you add 60 days notification to respond (30 x 2), the total effort reaches 300 days.

This is an unpredictable requirement that may or may not be excercised. Would the government consider removing this requirement and simply increase the contracted combat lines at each location? The reason for the request is that there is significant risk in a fixed price contract when the requirements are not firm. In addition, it takes anywhere from 45 to 60 days to obtain proper visas and work permits for the OCONUS locations that this scope of work is applied. The visa process timelime alone would force offerors to maintain increased staffing at all times at all sites to support this unpredictable requirement.

The Government will not consider removing this requirement and increasing the contracted combat lines at each location.

PWS

Recompete 2.4

QUESTION: Paragraph 2.4 is too vague for any offeror to establish a firm fixed price for hours of operation. Will the government clarify how many weekends, how many surges, TDY, exercises, etc.

are required per year per task order? Will all task orders require working mid‐shifts, night shifts, and weekends?

Coverage requirements will be identified in the unique requirements for each task order.

PWS

Recompete 3.2.1.2

PWS Paragraph 3.2.1.2 states that crews should be qualified as a “Mission Crew Element (MCE) with a minimum Basic Mission Capable (BMC) qualification” however, para 3.2.7.4 Training states that must verify LRE and Combat Mission Ready (CMR) which is a higher qualification level than BMC.

QUESTION: Which qualification is the minimum requirement?

It is ideal for the Government if Contractor aircrew started as fully current and qualified LRE aircrew. However, The Government is currently working to identify various AOR requirements and will post an update to the PWS should one be required.

PWS

Recompete 4.3.2

QUESTION: Allowing only two (2) hours to gather the requested information for a Class A, B, or C mishap may not be possible in many cases. Would the government consider changing two (2) hours to six (6) hours?

No. Two hours should be sufficient to notifiy the Government of a mishap. It is not the expectation of the Government for the Contractor to provide any information beyond what is listed in paragraph 4.3.2 at that time.

The information requested in paragraph 4.3.2 should be known by personnel on site and transmitted to the Governement via appropriate communication channels.

PWS

Recompete 4.13

QUESTION: Is it the government's intent for the contractor to launch two aircraft for every combat line? The only way to "sustain a combat‐capable aircraft on station (over target or area to be surveilled), 24 hours a day, continuously as dictated by mission requirements" is to launch a relief aircraft prior to the primary aircraft reaching its maximum loiter time. This requirement has a significant impact on the number of assigned billets since all work breakdown structures and staffing is based on the number of sorties launched and recovered each shift.

The contractor will be expected to launch two aircraft for a combat line as dictated by mission requirements.

Not every combat line will require two launches to maintain continuous coverage.

Solicitation FA4890‐16‐R‐0032 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED REGARDING DRAFT RFP Page 2 of 4

PWS

Recompete 4.13

QUESTION: The requirement of assigning up to four (4) MQ‐1 or MQ‐9 RPAs per combat line at each location could mean the government could provide one (1) aircraft per combat line and the contractor would have to meet the ATO. Can the government please provide a more accurate description for assigned aircraft the contractor can expect? For example; "the government will assign two to four aircraft per combat line at each location".

The Government has an inherent responsibility to provide an adequate number of aircraft to meet a given location’s mission. Given scheduled maintenance requirements and the fact that unscheduled aircraft breaks will occur, it isn’t reasonable to assign one aircraft to a site to support a single combat line. The requirement will remain as written.

PWS

Recompete 4.13

QUESTION: The same problem exists with the GCS and GDT. Government shall assign up to 2 GCSs and up to 2 GDTs for every 6 combat lines or fraction thereof at a given location. If the government chooses to assign one (1) GCS to support 6 combat lines, it would place additional challenges and risk to meet the ATO. Can the government please provide a more accurate description for assigned GCS/GDT the contractor can expect? For example; "the government will assign a minimum of one (1) GCS/GDT for every four (4) combat lines or fraction thereof at a given location".

The requirement will remain as written.

PWS

Recompete 4.13.1

QUESTION: This requirement requires the contractor to provide staffing to support up to 20 (23 if the aircraft abort rates are consistent) additional sorties per month. This unpredictable scenario forces the contractor to develop staffing levels to support the additional 20‐23 sorties per month even if the local Commander does not exercise this option. Unclear and variable requirements are not consistent with a fixed price contract. Would the government consider adding firm combat lines to the requirement instead of a potential dynamic tasking?

The contractor must be prepared to fully meet the Commander Directed Sorties (CDS) requirement every month.

The Government will not consider adding firm combat lines to the requirement in place of CDS.

14 CBA

QUESTION: Does the government expect offerors to use the CBA out year wages in the pricing for option years?

IAW FAR 22.1008‐2, a succesor contractor must pay wages and fringe benefits (including accrued wages and benefits and prospective increases) to service employees at least equal to those agreed upon by a predecessor contractor. Therefore until a new CBA is negotiated by the successor contractor, offerors shall be required to comply with any rates/finge benefits currently in place under a CBA.

15 Pricing Table QUESTION: Is there a Task Order for Grand Forks? No. The Pricing Table has been updated.

16 Pricing Table The Draft Pricing Table dated 22 Nov 2016 does not show all CONUS MCE sites and also does not indicate a CLIN for Misawa or Guam RQ‐4 sites.

QUESTION: Will the government provide an updated Pricing Table?

The sample pricing table provided with the draft RFP was provided as a generic excel pricing spreadsheet to give offerors an idea of what they would expect to see with the final document. We are still working the final spreadsheet which will include all existing sites as well as the RQ‐4 sites. An updated pricing table will not be provided until the final RFP is released.

17 Pricing Table

The Draft Pricing Table dated 22 Nov 2016, RFP Section B, and RFP Section F does not show the option year CLINS.

QUESTION: Will the government provide an updated Draft Pricing Table dated 22 Nov 2016 and the RFP Section B and F that provides base year and all option year CLINS?

The base IDIQ contract does not have option years; it includes a 7 year ordering period. Options will be included and priced at the task order level only. An updated pricing table will not be provided until the final RFP is released.

Section B & Section F

RFP Section B, Paragraph B‐3 and RFP Section F indicates the period of performance each year of the contract is 1 May and ending 30 April.

QUESTION: Is this the period of performance that should be used for all Task Order Pricing?

The actual period of performance is not known at this time as it is dependent on the RFP issuance date and the actual date of award. The final RFP will state the estimated performance start date which will be updated based on date of final award.

PWS

Appendix N

PWS Appendix N dated 16 Jun 2016 indicated an RQ‐4 site for Misawa Air Base, Japan. Appendix N dated 8 Nov 2016 does not indicate an RQ‐4 site for Misawa Air Base, Japan.

QUESTION: Has the RQ‐4 requirement for Misawa Air Base Japan been removed from the requirements?

The requirement has been changed to identify a location within the Pacific Command per updated Government requirements.

PWS

Appendix N

PWS Appendix N dated 8 Nov 2016 uses Fiscal Years for the period of performance for most of the task orders.

QUESTION: Should all task orders be priced based on fiscal years?

No. The PoP for task orders should not be priced based on fiscal years as the PoP crosses fiscal years. Task orders should be priced based on the proposed base contract IDIQ Fixed rates in effect at the time of the task order.

21 Section K QUESTION: Do primes get credit for “3rd tier” small business sub‐contractors? For example, if a sub‐ contractor has a mentor/protégé relationship established with a small business, and wants to retain that relationship for this opportunity, does the prime contractor still get small business credit?

In the scenario provided, with the sub being a large business then the prime would not get credit for the third‐ tier small business, even with the mentor‐protégé designation. Suggest the small business reaching out to their respective SBA office for additional guidance.

22 Appendix F 3.2.1.3

Can the government provide better definitions of the critical metrics in paragraph 3.2.1.3 of the Appendix F Award Fee Plan as they are correlated to the specific requirements of the PWS and Appendix H Service Summary? In particular, what specific requirements are the responsibility of the contractor versus the Air Force personnel? Since the government depicts this contract as an augmentation of the USAF operations support, and supplementation of host units, how or to what degree are the sub elements of the critical metrics determined to be that of the contractor vs the government? (Example NMCS impacts)

The Government will not break critical metrics down into sub‐elements for award/incentive fee purposes.

Solicitation FA4890‐16‐R‐0032 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED REGARDING DRAFT RFP Page 3 of 4

23 Section M M*‐2.3.3 Will the government reconsider the definition for “Very Relevant” subject to Section M, M‐2.3.3 to be less restrictive; specific to DoD only for RPA assets (MQ‐1, MQ‐9 or RQ‐4) at least to add DoD OR US Federal contracts?

The Government will not reconsider changing the definition for “Very Relevant” subject to Section M, M‐2.2.2 to be less restrictive.

Section L & M released on 22 Nov

Sections L & M do not seem to address the “Operations” (pilot/sensor operator) portion of the PWS requirements (PWS Section 3.0). This is reinforced by the lack of reference to any section 3.0 paragraphs in the Technical Factor Cross Reference Matrix provided as Section L, Attachment 4.

Section A Paragraph 2.0 and subsequent are applicable to both maintenance and operations personnel.

Section L & M released on 22 Nov

Per the Instructions for the Cross Reference Matrix (L‐9.2), “All referenced paragraphs include all subsequent subparagraphs (for example, 5.0 includes 5.1, 5.2, 5.2.1, etc.).” This said, the Technical Factor Cross Reference Matrix (Section L, Attachment 4) specifies PWS Section A, para 4.0 as the PWS reference for the Section L paragraph L‐9.4.2.2 (Subfactor B: Operations & Maintenance, Aspect II:

Aircraft/GCS Availability). Section A, paragraph 4.0 (to include all subparagraphs) is 15 pages long, and many of the paragraphs within that section make direct reference to accomplishment tasks per the multitude of publications identified in Appendices C & D. We feel that if offerors must address approaches to all subparagraphs of PWS Section A, paragraph 4.0, this lengthy description in response to Subfactor B, Aspect II, will detract from the overall approaches to Subfactor B.

o In order for offerors to provide concise and clear responses to Section L‐9.4.22, Subfactor B:

Operations & Maintenance, Aspect II: Aircraft/GCS Availability Management, will the Government consider providing a narrower focus for the discussion of Aircraft/GCS Availability Management from PWS Part A, para 4.0 to specific topics the Government deems appropriate to determine the viability of the offeror’ s approach (i.e. 4.3 Aircraft; 4.8 Ground Control Station (GCS); 4.13 MQ‐1/MQ‐9 Combat Lines; 4.17 Logistics Management; 4.22 MQ‐1/MQ‐9 Aircraft Armament Systems; and 4.23 MQ‐1/MQ‐9 Munitions)

It is not the intent of the Government to have the offerors respond to every paragraph in the PWS. The offeror is expected to respond to each paragraph in Sections L & M. Reference shall be made to the appropriate section of the PWS when providing responses to these paragraphs.

26 When does the government plan to have the bidder’s library available for access? The Government plans to have the bidder's library available after release of the final RFP.

Will the Government reconsider an FFP Incentive Fee contract type as a less administrative alternative to both the Government and Contractor personnel?

The Government will not reconsider an FFP Incentive Fee contract type.

On CLIN 0010 “Surge”, would a task order CLIN with pre‐negotiated rates provide more flexibility to the Government?

The Surge CLINs 0010 thru 0012 will be awarded based on a fixed pre‐negotiated total overall cost for the surge deployment package for each of the deployed locations. This fixed rate will be included as CLINs 0010 thru 0012 in the base IDIQ contract as well as an optional CLIN in the respective deployed task orders.

PWS

Recompete 2.5.1

Will the government please provide a draft Appendix L so offerors can begin the Key Personnel selection process?

Appendix L will be based on the winning bidder's input. The Government will not provide a structure as this will take the opportunity away from the bidders to develop their unique proposals. Government‐identified Key Personnel are identified in paragraph 2.5.1 and it is up to the bidders to determine what qualifications must be met by those individuals.

PWS

Recompete 2.2

Section D states the transition is 105 days and Section L of the RFP states the transition is 120 days.

Will the government clarify if the transition period is 105 days or 120 days?

Transition Period is 120 days

31 Section L 7.5.1 Paragraph 7.5.1 references 7.5.3 for page exclusions, when it appears the correct reference should be 7.5.2.

Agree. Will be corrected in the final Section L.

32 Section L 7.5.3

Each volume shall be in a single searchable file.

1) Will the government make an exception to this requirement for Volume III Price? Recommend allowing a separate file(s) for each Part as necessary to comply with both spreadsheet (Excel) and narrative (Word/PDF) requirements.

2) Will the government make an exception for Volume II Past Performance to allow submission of the PPI tool (Access Database) as a separate electronic file in accordance with Attachment 1 – PPI Tool Instructions?

Section L paragraph 7.5.3 will be amended to allow for providing separate files by file type.

33 Section L PPI Tool

PPI Tool – Hard copies of the pages generated from this tool shall be used as the hard copy of the Past Performance Volume.

Please confirm if the offeror is to submit the hard copy pages (PDF) generated from the PPI tool without any modification or formatting. Are these generated pages (PDF) to be merged with the rest of the Volume II document or submitted as a separate electronic document?

Hard copies not required. Section L updated.

34 Section L 11.2.1 Revised Wording/Clarification Question: We see no other reference to Volume I, Part B. Where can we find Volume I, Part B?

Removed references to Volume I parts A & B.

35 Section L 7.5 Revised Wording/Clarification Question: Is this requirement by volume numbering sequentially?

Volume numbering/labeling shall be IAW Table Para L‐7.5. Numbering is not sequential across volumes, i.e. each volume will start with "page 1."

N5.2 and N6.0

FY‐19‐ End requires support for combat lines at 8 potential sites in 5.2, however, aircrew are required for support at up to 10 sites in 6.0. Please clarify.

Paragraph N5.2 refers to maintenance requirements. Paragraph N6.0 refers to aircrew requirements. These requirements are independent of one another and will not necessarily match.

Solicitation FA4890‐16‐R‐0032 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED REGARDING DRAFT RFP Page 4 of 4

37 N/A N/A

The draft solicitation appears to be a recompete of MQ‐1/MQ‐9 work currently performed under FA4890‐13‐D‐0001 (Battlespace) and RQ‐4 work currently performed under FA8528‐15‐C‐0003 (Northrop). Are these contract numbers correct? Does the solicitation consolidate any other current contract efforts? If so, under what contract number is that work performed?

The referenced contract numbers are correct. However, contract FA4890‐13‐D‐0001 also includes Launch and Recovery Element (LRE) aircrew support. There are no other contracts being consolidated under this solicitation.

Section F, N/A

Section F, Page 13 of the Draft RFP (DRFP) shows CLIN 0001 Transition PoP of 1 Mar 2018 to 30 Apr 2018 a period of 61 days. However, Draft PWS Section D Transition , Para 7.0 ( P. 57) indicates a transition iwthin 105 days. Further, DRFP Section L‐9.4.3.1 Aspect I; Transition Plan cites a mandated 120‐ day timeframe. Would the government consider clarifiying at the earliest opportunity the desired transition time frame?

The transition is 120 days; the final documents will be updated before RFP release.

39 Section L Attachment 1 &

L‐10.1.2

Cannot locate the PPI tool on the FBO page referenced in the draft RFP for this procurement: Section L, Attachment 1, page 95 & Section L‐10.1.2, page 89. We would like to have access to this tool as we develop our draft proposal from the draft RFP.

Can the PPI tool be provided?

The PPI tool will be uploaded to FBO with the final RFP.