Amend_0002_-_Questions_and_Responses.docx

Solicitation FA4890-17-R-0015-0002

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Reference. RFP – Section B / Page 2 / CLIN 0001 - Phase-In, Transition/Deployment to OCONUS Sites A & B

Question 1: Does this CLIN 0001 also include Phase-In for Site C? Would the Government consider one CLIN per each site, as opposed to one for A and B, to ensure there is phase-in for Site C?

Response: Section B has been updated. CLINS 1007 description includes the following: “Transition / Deployment to OCONUS Sites C. The contractor shall apply Phase-In cost for Site C to this CLIN 1007. Note: The Phase-In cost must be broken out in each contractors cost volume under CLIN 1007, if site C is not exercised in the base year the proposed Phase-In costs in CLIN 1007 will be applied to the option year the site is exercised.”

Reference. RFP – Section B / Page 14-16 / CLIN 4003 – Site A – OCONUS - CLIN 4006 – Site B – OCONUS

Question 2: CLINs 4003-4006 do not follow the same pattern as the rest of the CLINs (1000s, 2000s, 3000s, 5000s). All CLINs go from Site A 600 hrs to Site A 75 hrs, Site B 600hrs to Site B 75 hrs and so on…4003 is Site A 600 hrs. then 4004 jumps to Site B 600 hrs. Does the description for 4004 and 4005 need to be switched?

Response: CLIN numbers have been corrected.

Reference. RFP – Section B / Page 2-22 / In the revised Section B, each CLIN is identified as an Option except for CLIN 0001, Phase-In.

Question 3: In the DRFP, there was a Base Year and Year 2 was the optional period of performance. Is it the Government's intent to eliminate a base year or should we expect an update to the Section B Supplies or Services and Prices?

Response: Correct all years are option years, it is the Governments intent to exercise the first option year during the transition period of performance.

Reference. RFP – Section L / Page 68, 74, and 75 (4.3, Aspect C-1, Aspect C-3) Pages not included in Page Count. The organizational chart…Aspect C-1 Include a flow chart, diagram, or other visual depiction of the organizational structure clearly showing lines of authority. Aspect C-3 ii. Organizational Chart that identifies personnel involved in the phase-in, functional statements for each position..."

Question 4: Please clarify if all requests for Organizational Charts are excluded from the page count? Offerors are asked in both paragraph Aspect C-1 i. and Aspect C-3 ii. to include Organizational Charts.

Response: All organizational charts are excluded from the page count.

Reference. Attachment L-1, L-2, and L-3 / Footer calls out N00019-16-R-0063

Question 5: Please clarify if this reference pertains to the acquisition, otherwise, will the government update the attachments to remove the information in the footer?

Response: Footer information revised

Reference. Attachment 3 – Cost Summary / The title of the Summary is "UAS ISR Bridge Contract"

Question 6: Please clarify the meaning of Bridge Contract as it relates to this acquisition?

Response: Cost Summary has been revised, “Bridge” reference removed.

Reference. Attachment 3 – Cost Summary / Instruction states: "2. Please do not modify the quantities listed."

Question 7: It appears that quantities are not contained on the worksheet. Request Government clarification.

Response: Cost Summary has been revised, instruction 2 has been removed.

Reference. PWS – Section A / Page 9 (3.3.4) / …and be simultaneously configurable with both EO and IR optical sensors…

Based on the criteria established in PWS Sections 3.0, Table 1, 3.3.4 and 3.8.2, is the requirement that the AV be capable of switching between an EO with a NIIRS rating of 8.4 and IR with NIIRS rating of 7.2 cameras during the same flight?

Question 8: Contractor requests the Government please clarify the requirement as it changed from the DRFP to the final RFP. DRFP stated EO or IR while the final RFP updated to EO and IR.

Response: PWS has been clarified to read (EO or IR).

Reference. Draft PWS – Section C / Page 24 (1.1) / In accordance with Contract Clause 252.225-7040(e)(vii), prior to deployment contractor personnel designated to deploy shall attend a 1-week military-run pre-deployment training program such as the one available at the Continental U.S. Replacement Center at Ft. Bliss, TX.

(Request Government clarification as this requirement appears to have changed from the Draft PWS.)

Question 9: Will it be a Government requirement for FSRs to attend the 1-week deployment training in Ft. Bliss, TX?

Response: PWS Section C, para 1.0 - Personnel has been revised. The contractor may fulfill this requirement by attending a 1-week military-run pre-deployment training program such as the one available at the Continental U.S. Replacement Center (CRC) at Ft. Bliss, TX, or the contractor may propose another approach to meet the requirements. The Government considers this a contractor business decision and the contractors approach must comply with contract clause DFAR 252.225-7040(f)(1). The contractor should include these costs in CLIN X002, X004, and X006. In addition, the contractor’s approach should be detailed in their Volume II - Technical.

Question 10: Will Contractors be required to use MILAIR in and out of AOR?

Response: No; however, the contractor shall comply with B-4, and clause DFAR 252.231-7000.

Reference. PWS – Section C / Page 28 (3.18) / The Contractor shall provide engineering expertise to ensure the systems and related documentation are maintained for Cybersecurity compliance.

Question 11: This paragraph when combined with guidance’s in Section A, 4.1.6 describes overall DOD Cybersecurity requirements but does not indicate AFCENT delivery information to provide evidence in support of an authority to operate (ATO) though out the Period of Performance.

Response: This question is still under review; response to be provided separately.

Reference. PWS – Section B / Page 20 (1.0) / It would appear like Table 2.0 in Section B - Service Summary (SS) is missing.

Question 12: Was it the Government’s intent to include an additional table (Table 2.0) in this section?

Response: There is only one table. PWS changed to indicate Table 1.

Reference. PWS – Appendix D / Page 42 (1.1)

Question 13: Would the Government kindly specify the required content of the "System Description Documents" Deliverable, and how this Deliverable is distinct from the AADP Deliverable.

Response: There is no distinction. The “System Description Documents” deliverable will be removed from the Appendix D deliverables table.

Reference. RFP – Section L / Page 75 (7.1)

Question 14: Will the six-month extension pricing requirement under section L 7.5 be a Government calculation or does the Government expect this pricing to be submitted with the proposal? If Contractors are expected to provide six month extension pricing does the Government plan to add a CLIN to Schedule B for the 6-month extension requirement?

Response: The contractor will not have to submit pricing for the 6-month extension (if exercised). The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all CLINS including phase-in, option years, and fifty percent (50%) of the last option period price to cover the option to extend services IAW Clause 52.217-8.

Question 15: How are these services currently being performed? Under contract? In-house?

Response: Currently under contract.

Question 16: If these requirements are currently being performed under a contract,

Reference. PWS / Para 3.7.6 / The PWS states that Identification "can include but is not limited to expected future policy requirements such as ADS-B or Mode-s."

Question 17: When does the government expect these future requirements to be in place, relative to this program? We recommend these requirements be considered capability improvements that will be defined and negotiated within the technical improvement CLIN.

Response: The Government is unsure when requirements will change. Any upgrades required due to changes in applicable airspace policies and regulations would be handled when they are defined and required.

Reference. PWS / Para 3.7.1 / The PWS identifies that BE-CDL, when available, is desired.

Question 18: How will the desired capability (BE-CDL) be evaluated in the source selection? We recommend this requirement be considered as a capability improvement that will be defined and negotiated within the technical improvement CLIN.

Response: Proposals must meet the minimum requirements of para 3.7.1 for what is available now. The reference to BE-CDL is only to make offerors aware that it is desired when it becomes available.

Reference. Appendix D / Root Cause Analysis / PWS paragraph reference appears to be incorrect. Section A, Para 4.2.9.3 is not relevant to Root Cause Analysis.

Question 19: Please clarify or provide the correct reference.

Response: The correct reference is Section A, Para 4.2.9.4. The PWS updated.

Reference. Appendix D / System Description Document / Table D identifies that the "System Description Document" initial delivery is with the proposal. We were unable to determine from the Section L instructions where in the proposal documentation this should be included.

Question 20: Please clarify.

Response: The System Description Document is an old reference and will be removed from the deliverables table in Section D of the PWS.

Reference. Appendix D / AV Risk Assessment / Table D identifies that the "AV Risk Assessment" initial delivery is with the proposal. We were unable to determine from the Section L instructions where in the proposal documentation this should be included.

Question 21: Please clarify.

Response: It should be submitted in Annex C to Volume II. Section L Subfactor A, Para i. will be updated.

Reference. Appendix D / E3 and EMI Data / Table D identifies that the "E3 and EMI data" initial delivery is with the proposal. We were unable to determine from the Section L instructions where in the proposal documentation this should be included.

Question 22: Please clarify.

Response: It is in Section L Subfactor A, Para i: “Submit data to support the requirements of PWS Paragraph[s] [4.1.2.4 and] 4.1.4 in Annex C to Volume II.”

Reference. Appendix D / Application for Equipment Frequency Allocation spectrum analysis and allocation / Table D identifies that the "Application for Equipment Frequency Allocation spectrum analysis and allocation" initial delivery is with the proposal. We were unable to determine from the Section L instructions where in the proposal documentation this should be included.

Question 23: Please clarify.

Response: The requirement has been changed to submit 10 days after contract award. The deliverables table in Appendix D of the PWS has been updated.

Reference. Appendix D / Contractor's Standard Operating Procedure / Table D identifies that the "Contractor's Standard Operating Procedure" initial delivery is with the proposal. We were unable to determine from the Section L instructions where in the proposal documentation this should be included.

Question 24: Please clarify.

Response: The requirement has been changed to submit the SOPs prior to site activation with subsequent deliveries as required. The deliverables table in Appendix D of the PWS has been updated.

Reference. PWS / Section D / Government-Provided Support

Question 25: There are two GFP clauses called out in the RFP, 52.245-1 and 52.245-2. Which one applies to the GFP listed in Section D of the PWS?

Response: 52.245-1; 52-245-2 has been removed.

Reference. RFP / Section M / B.1(c)

Question 26: How will the USAF evaluate strengths in the proposal with no specifically stated threshold or objective requirements in the PWS?

Response: In accordance with the DOD Source Selection Procedures a strength is “an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.” The evaluation for this solicitation will be in accordance with Section M, Evaluation Factors and Methodology which states “Proposals will be evaluated using three factors which are as follows: (1) Past Performance, (2) Technical Capability, and (3) Price. In terms of the hierarchy of importance, the Past Performance and Technical Capability Factors are equally important. The Price Factor is the least important factor. Furthermore, there are three subfactors within the Technical Capability Factor: (1) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Performance, (2) Payload Performance, and (3) Program Management. Subfactors are listed in order of importance.”

Reference. RFP / Section B / B.3 / There is a singular Phase-In period CLIN that covers the transition and deployment to OCONUS Sites A & B, but Site C is an optional CLIN.

Question 27: Should the Phase-In costs for Site-C be included in CLIN 0001, Phase In?

Response: See response to question 1.

The following are recommendation -

Reference. RFP – Section L / Page 68 (4.4) / Volume III - Price shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel 2010 or later.

Recommendation 1: The information requested in Volume III - Price, contains information that may be in various file types such as PDF, .doc, .xlsx, for example. Additionally, the government has requested information such as Attachment 3 - Cost Summary, that would be provided in Excel 2010 or later format. Recommend accepting multiple file formats in addition to Excel 2010.

Response: Contractors shall submit documents in the appropriate format IAW the RFP, related to the document being submitted. To clarify the reference to Excel 2010 or later, this relates to offerors pricing proposals (spreadsheets).

Reference. PWS – Section A / Page 16 (4.1.6) / PWS Paragraph 4.1.6 UAS Cybersecurity describes the overarching DOD Cybersecurity requirements but does not indicate AFCENT expectations to obtain an authority to operate (ATO).

Recommendation 2: Can the Government add Cybersecurity requirements to the PWS Appendix D list of deliverables indicating Recipient, Initial Delivery and Subsequent Delivery dates?

Reference. PWS – Attachment 1-AADP / Page 48 (1.c) / Registration Number – identify the registration number(s) of the aircraft. For unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), this is the registration number issued in compliance with FAA Part 107, as applicable.

Response: This question is still under review; response to be provided separately.

Recommendation 3. Removing FAA Part 107 and Registration number requirement.

Response: This is boilerplate language for contracting UAS services going forward. In the future, this language could be applicable. We want offerors to provide registration number(s) for aircraft if they exist, either a traditional FAA aircraft N-number or a registration number obtained to comply with Part 107. That's part of the intent of "as applicable" at the end of the sentence; if there is (are) no registration number(s), then this item is not applicable and no registration number is provided.

Reference. PWS – Section A / Page 14 (4.1.2.4)

Recommendation 4: Would the Government consider a recommendation of delivering a Safety Management Plan (SMP) with the proposal followed by a System Safety Hazard Analysis Report (SSHAR) and formal risk assessment IAW with MIL-STD-882E after contract award?

Response: The Safety Plan and Hazard Analysis Report are due 5 days after contract award. The formal risk assessment is due with the proposal. This was intended as part of the assessment of the offeror’s capability of obtaining the USAF Military Flight Release.

Reference. PWS – Appendix D / Page 42 (1.1) / The “Contractor’s Standard Operating Procedure” Data Item has a PWS reference of Section B, Para 4.1.7. This appears to be incorrect, as the referenced PWS section does not exist. The correct reference appears to be PWS Section A, Paragraph 4.17.

Recommendation 5: Deliverable Table be updated with the corrected reference.

Response: PWS will be updated to reference correct Section.

Reference. PWS – Appendix D / Page 42 (1.1)

Recommendation 6: Appendix D Deliverable Table be updated to specify “Prior to Site Activation” for Initial Delivery and “Update as Required” for Subsequent Deliveries.

Response: Delivery schedule was incorrectly stated and the PWS will be updated.

Reference. RFP – Section L / Para 7.5 / The cost data requested appears to be cost and pricing data. This is not typically done in a competitive contract environment. FAR Part 15.403-1(b)(1) and FAR 15.403-1(c)(i) states certified cost or pricing data is not required when there is adequate price competition.

Recommendation 7: We recommend that the government accept element of cost data (Labor, Material, ODC, etc.) by CLIN at the fully burdened through profit level. This proposed alternative would enable the government to determine price reasonableness and balance.

Response: Please provide supporting data as requested in accordance with, Section L, para 7.5, Reference. PWS / Para 3.3.3, 3.8.1.1, and 3.8.2 / Requirement 3.3.3 states "the AV shall also be capable of supporting optional Long Wave IR and Short Wave IR payloads if needed for future mission requirements."

Recommendation 8 & 9: We recommend that the IR output meeting NIIRS rating of 7.2 stated in PWS 3.8.2 should specifically apply to Medium Wave IR payload performance. Plus, we recommend PWS 3.8.2 be reworded as, "The Contractor-provided system shall be capable of producing an MWIR output meeting or exceeding the NIRS rating of 7.2".

Response: The MWIR is the minimum requirement and therefore the minimum NIIRS rating of 7.2 applies to the MWIR. The PWS Para 3.8.2 will be changed to indicate that the NIIRS rating applies to MWIR.

Reference. PWS / Para 4.1.6.3 / PWS specifies that we provide 1494's for datalinks.

Recommendation 10: If a JF-12 assignments are available for a specific link, we recommend that the JF-12 be submitted in place of 1494's. Is this acceptable?

Response: This recommendation will be answered separately.