RFP_Q_and_A_Posted_20_Mar_17.pdf

Industry Questions (Q) and Responses (R)

20 March 2017

RFP Clarification Questions

1 RFP Appendix N

Original Wording: Multiple entries discuss Options for different contract years.

Revised Wording/Clarification Question: Does the contractor have to be prepared to execute all of the options listed in a given year?

Concern or impact if not changed/clarified: Significant manpower and equipment issues. For instance, for MQ-1/9 OCONUS Requirements, FY18 Base Year, 5 options are listed which more than double the number of combat lines and GCSs from the set locations.

RESPONSE: Yes, the contractor must be prepared to execute all of the options listed in a given year. There is no guarantee that all options will be executed.

2 PWS Section A, para 2.5.1

Original Wording: The last sentence of this paragraph states “Key personnel must meet all qualifications as defined in Appendix L and the Government reserves the right to require proof of qualification for all key personnel at its discretion.”

Revised Wording/Clarification Question: Could the Government provide Appendix L?

Concern or impact if not changed/clarified: Government Key Personnel qualification requirements are unknown.

RESPONSE: PWS Para 2.5.1 will be updated by Amendment 0001 to say Appendix J, Contractor Identified Key Personnel-Qualifications.

3 RFP Section L, para L-9.4.1.1 and

Appendix N

Original Wording: “Provide CONUS and OCONUS Manning Matrixes based upon PWS Appendix N in the format below.”

Revised Wording/Clarification Questions: Should bidders populate the staffing tables exactly as presented in L-9.4.1.1, or modify column titles to reflect Appendix N requirements. How does the Government require bidders to present staffing changes from year-to-year as a result of requirement changes in Appendix N?

Concern or impact if not changed/clarified: Requirements presented in Section N differ from the data fields we are asked to capture in L-9.4.1.1. For example, the Section L OCONUS RQ-4 Manning Matrix requires we provide staffing for Misawa AB, Japan. Appendix N (Figure 1.1 FY18-End) lists Anderson AFB, PACOM Deployed, and Sigonella NAS as the supported RQ-4 locations. Appendix N does not list Misawa as a requirement.

RFP Clarification Questions

RESPONSE: Amendment 0001 will incorporate Section L matrix, updated for consistency w/ Appendix N reading “PACOM Deployed”. Bidders will not address year-to-year changes in the Manning Matrix; those changes will be documented in the technical proposal.

4 PWS Section A, paras 4.19.1, 4.19.3, & 4.19.4

Original Wording: All paragraphs have a reference to Appendix E.

Revised Wording/Clarification Question: The Appendix E was not provided with the final RFP documents issued on 7 Mar 2017. Would the Government please provide Appendix E.

Concern or impact if not changed/clarified: Impact on Technical and/or Pricing response to RFP unknown due to missing document.

RESPONSE: In addition to the GFP lists already provided as PWS Attachments 09 through 14, the Government will provide PWS Appendix E, Government Furnished Property, with Amendment 0001.

5 RFP Section F

Original Wording: 8 Feb 2017: Draft RFP Section F - Deliveries or Performance

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC

0001 POP 01-JAN-2018 TO N/A ACC AMIC - F2QF04 F2QF04

30-APR-2018 RPA PROGRAM MANAGER

129 ANDREWS ST, STE 110

LANGLEY AFB VA 23665-2788

757-764-9427 FOB: Destination

0002 POP 01-MAY-2018 TO N/A (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION) F2QF04

30-APR-2025 FOB: Destination

7 Mar 2017: Final RFP Section F - Deliveries or Performance

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC

/ CAGE

0001 POP 23-MAR-2018 TO N/A ACC AMIC - F2QF04 F2QF04

30-APR-2018 RPA PROGRAM MANAGER

129 ANDREWS ST, STE 110

LANGLEY AFB VA 23665-2788

757-764-9427

RFP Clarification Questions

FOB: Destination

0002 POP 01-MAR-2018 TO N/A (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION) F2QF04

28-FEB-2025 FOB: Destination

Revised Wording/Clarification Questions: Request clarification on the Section F Deliveries or Performance dates listed in the Final RFP issued on March 7, 2013

Concern or impact if not changed/clarified: The Feb 8, 17 version of Section F, the transition CLIN POP was 1 JAN 2018 – 30 APR 2018, equating to a 120 day transition period.

The dates from the March 7, 2017 RFP for Section F, the transition CLIN POP is 23 MAR 2018 – 3 APR 2018, equating to a 39 day transition period.

Another issue on other CLINs, the starting date begins prior to the transition, as an example CLIN 0002 POP in the Mar 7, 17 RFP Section F, shows the POP starting on 1 MAR 2018, prior to the transition start date of 23 MAR 2018.

RESPONSE: The dates listed in Section F of the RFP are the ordering periods for the base IDIQ and are not representative of the task order period of performance (PoPs). As posted to FBO on 17 Mar 18, via the Questions and Answers, RQ-4 task order PoP start date is 1 Jul 18, and all other active task orders (MQ-1/9/LRE) PoP starting 1 Aug 18, with all task order base year PoPs ending 30 Jun 18.

In addition, the transition period for RQ-4 is 100 days and all MQ-1/9/LRE active task orders being 120 days prior to full performance start. Amendment 0001 will be issued to clarify the transition and the ordering period.

6 PWS Section L, para L-9.2

Original Wording: “All referenced paragraphs include all subsequent subparagraphs (for example, 5.0 includes 5.1, 5.2, 5.2.1, etc.).”

Revised Wording/Clarification Question: The example of Section L 5.0 is used, however, Section

5.0 (and 3.0) is not included in the table. Is this an oversight or intentional?

Concern or impact if not changed/clarified: Correctly staffing RQ-4 GCS sites requires bidders understand the number of systems supported at each operating location.

RESPONSE: Using “5.0” in the instructions was not intended to draw your attention to PWS

5.0. Intent was only to show that subordinate paragraphs are also to be considered. To eliminate confusion, the example has been changed to para 2.0.

Additionally, the term “example” is removed from Section L, Attachment 4. This matrix will be provided in the same format in the proposals.

RFP Clarification Questions

Also in Section L, Attachment 4, the PWS paragraph reference for “Deployed Operations Management” is updated to 2.22. All changes noted will be included in Amendment 0001.

7 PWS Section A, para 5.4.3

Original Wording: The Contractor and subcontractors as required, must possess or acquire a Top Secret facility clearance and be entitled to COMSEC information without additional authorization (i.e. National Interest Determination (NID) prior to performing contract work.

Clarification Question: In PWS paragraph 3.2.2 it states, “The Contractor shall provide personnel with at least a Secret security clearance” and the DD254 Attachment 2 states, “Facility Clearance Required TOP SECRET”. Are the Pilot and Sensor Operators required to be cleared to SECRET or TOP SECRET clearance level?

Concern or impact if not changed/clarified: Alignment to a compliant proposal submission and accounting for proper subcontractor facility clearance levels required.

RESPONSE: Pilots and Sensor Operators require a Secret security clearance.