FA520525R00010002_Atch1_Consol List of Govt Response Clarification_10Apr25.pdf

Query No.

Target Document

Reference Question Submitted by Prospective Offerors Gov't Response/Clarification

1 RFP Solicitation Section L Within Section L under Part III – Past Performance Proposal the Past Performance Information required a section for “(2) Product/Service”. Would the Government clarify if this section needs to be filled in with the Government Product/Services “Code” or does the contractor need to include a description of services?

The offeror should provide brief narrative description of the service provided. Please ensure that each information includes sufficient detail for the evaluators to assess the similarity and relevance to the solicited effort.

2 RFP Solicitation Section L Would the government clarify if offerors need to submit CDs with their hard copy proposals? The offerors shall submit hard copies of the proposal and the electronic version of their complete proposal via e-mail (see Section L, para. C.4.(g)). Email submissions must be received no later than the proposal due date and time specified in the solicitation. Offerors are responsible for ensuring the successful and timely delivery of all required files. If file size exceeds e-mail limitations, offerors should contact the contracting officer in advance to coordinate an alternative method.

3 PWS 1.4.5.7 Can the Government provide details on the current JDEWR operations, including labor categories, technical skill requirements, necessary qualifications, types of services and equipment?

The JDEWR in an extension of the current Misawa Operations Center as the operation stations end with the UMTE/JTE threat systms as the controlled threat emmitter systems. The controll van houses the same type of equipment/computers. The difference is that the equipment is housed inside or a control van/vehicle vs a physical facility. The Misawa Operations Center and the control van operates the same end unit of the UMTE and possibly in the JTE in the future. The base line software configuration between the two remains almost identical. The Future operation could hold that the Misawa Operation Center could control a mission of a UMTE/JTE threat sytem located anywhere in the PACAF Theater as linked via commucations link. JDEWR primary "grouped" Equipment listed is listed on Appendix 4. and a basic JDEWR description is on Appendix 8, Specific System Description section 16.

4 PWS 1.4.5.7 How many personnel are currently assigned to JDEWR operations on the other contracts? When Deployed, a group of 3 to 5 Personnel go with the system depending on mission deployment and all may not be needed throughout deployment.

5 PWS 1.4.5.7 When is Government planning on relocating the JDEWR Program to Misawa to ensure we can better support the desired outcome?

The JDEWR Program will start on the date of the Start of the contract with a turnover time of approximately 3 month with current operations contractor. The JDEWR system from the Philippines after Balikatan exercise will be transported to Misawa in June 2025. Historically, one of the JDEWR systems has resided at Kunsan Air Base Korea and has supported yearly exercises throughout Korea. Their in not a planned deployment during Oct -Dec 2025. "Joint Deployable" is designed to be deployed and may not be fully located at Misawa after every deployment. For example the control van may be able to move around and stored at in the PACAF theater, but may be stationed at Misawa for Operational support for deployments - This is a costing savings measure.

The UMTE/JTE threat systems most likely come back to Misawa each time and is based on next deployment location and time frames of moves. The Government will direct deployment needs.

6 PWS 1.4.5.7 To ensure compliance and appropriately sized staffing, would the Government provide its estimated required hours of support for PWS 1.4.5.7 services or the current hours that are being accomplished to support the PWS 1.4.5.7 requirements?

The operation hours during deployments varies based off of the flying schedule, but historically we have not had any overtime requests from the current contract company for JDEWR support while deployed.

7 PWS 1.4.5.7 Would the Government clarify whether personnel transportation will be provided during these exercises listed in PWS 1.4.5.7?

Historically, the employees supporting these deployable assets travel to/from deployed locations via commercial air travel, and the government is billed via a deployable CLIN. Personnel transportation can be two fold, either on a govt chartered aircraft along with the deployed system or via as a separate cost reimbursable via Deployable CLIN. Initial LOAs' , in addion to other provilages, the contractor should have all deployable locations and MILAIR checked on them so additional LOA would not need to be generated for deployment purposes.

8 PWS 1.4.5.7 Would the Government clarify who is responsible for coordinating the airlift transportation of JDEWR assets?

The Contractor shall plan, deploy, operate, repair, maintain, fuel, and re-deploy systems as directed by the elements of the contract. Upon return from mission execution events, the Contractor shall inventory, repair, replenish, and prepare systems and equipment for redeployment for other events, or Home Station use. The payment methods for transportation is normally done with Government provided TAC Code. History has shown that commercial means have been cost effective, however Military airlift operations are also a viable option.

9 PWS 1.4.5.7 What is the standard method for transporting JDEWR assets to the deployed locations listed in PWS 1.4.5.7.2?

The preferred method of shipping the equipment is the Army's Operation Pathways as it is free.

Commercial surface shipment is also a cost effective means of shipping the equipment, and military airlift is also an option. The company should closely coordinate with the Government as to the shipping method to ensure it meets the Governments requirement.

10 PWS Would the Government clarify if lodging is provided during these exercises listed in PWS 1.4.5.7? Contractors can use an LOA for government facilities when they are available. Additionally, commercial lodging can be utilized and in some cases PACAF/A37 (Exercise Division) may recommend US State Department approved lodging for all exercise participants. All lodging is reimbursable up to the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR) rate, and over in unusual circumstance, under the Deployable CLIN.

RFP No. FA520525R0001, Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of Draughon Bombing and Electronic Attack Range, Misawa Air Base, Japan Consolidated List of Prospective Offerors' Submitted Questionnaire and U.S. Government Response/Clarification (10 Apr 25)

Attachment 1 to

FA520525R00010002

Target Document

Reference Question Submitted by Prospective Offerors Gov't Response/Clarification

RFP No. FA520525R0001, Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of Draughon Bombing and Electronic Attack Range, Misawa Air Base, Japan Consolidated List of Prospective Offerors' Submitted Questionnaire and U.S. Government Response/Clarification (10 Apr 25)

11 PWS 1.4.5.7 PWS Section 1.4.5.7.1.1 states, “Incorporate Government’s intention to continue local operations while JDEWR system is deployed with less local capability due to deployed assets.” Given the phrase “less local capability due to the deployed assets,” does the Government intend to maintain the same staffing levels while increasing deployment operations for TDY exercises? Additionally, does this imply that onsite requirements at Misawa, Japan, will decrease?

Less UMTE/JTE Threat Emitters will be at Misawa due to their deployment. Maintenance would go with the UMTE/JTE threat system wherever it may be located. Transportation of the systems are the long lead times. The implication would be yes the Misawa maintenance tech would decrease while deployed. The contractor is tasked to maintain the "Home Stations" range capability while potentially supporting two simultaneous deployments.

12 RFP Solicitation Section B Option Line Item X004 lists an estimated amount of $60,000 instead of a NTE limit and states, “The Government is not obligated to reimburse the contractor for any costs in excess of the estimated amount of this CLIN.” Based on our analysis and historical information on similar contracts, the estimated amount may be lower than the actual costs incurred throughout the year. Additionally, travel rates may change based on weather, and or economic factors over the Period of Performance (PoP). Would the Government consider making this a Cost Reimbursable CLIN?

At this time, the CLIN is structured as an Estimate (EST) based on projected usage and historical data. While we understand that actual costs-particularly for travel, may vary due to factors such as weather or economic changes, the government does not intend to convert this CLIN to a cost-reimbursable structure. Offerors are encouraged to factor in potential variability and risk when developing their pricing. Should actual conditions significantly change during contract performance, the contracting officer will evaluate the situation in accordance with applicable regulations.

13 RFP Solicitation Section L On page 49 of the RFP, the Proposal Submission table lists a 50-page limit for Past Performance Part III. However, on page 48, it states, “Limited to no more than ten (10) pages per contract listed.”

Would the Government consider allowing the Past Performance volume to remain at 50 pages while also permitting space for an introduction, issue resolution explanations, and other quality and satisfaction rating requirements, as requested in Section L.B.3 Part II Past Performance Proposal Instructions to allow the use of the full 50 page requirement in case the contractor does not provide 5 total projects?

The intent of the solicitation is to limit the past performance volume to no more than 50 pages total, with a suggested guideline of up to 10 pages per contract listed.

14 RFP Solicitation Section L If the answer to question 13 is that we would not be allowed to utilize the entire 50 pages, where would the government like us to include (if any) programs that have encountered problems and those resolutions that took place?

The government confirms that the 50 page limit for the past performance volume is not to be exceeded, and the limit of 10 pages per contract listed is intended as a maximum per project, not as guidance for overall formatting flexibility. If fewer than five (5) projects are submitted, the total number of pages must still align with the 10 page per project maximum. For example, if only three

(3) projects are submitted, the total past performance submission should not exceed 30 pages.

Regarding the inclusion of programs that encountered issues and their resolutions, offerors should include that information within the 10 page limit for each respective project. This content is considered essential to demonstrating performance history and should be integrated into each project’s description. The government will evaluate how well offers address all elements required under Section L within the allowed space.

15 RFP Solicitation FAR Amendment 0001 updated FAR 52.233-10 “Waste Reduction Program” (May 2024) and replaced with FAR 52.223-10 "Waste Reduction Program” (Mar 2025) (DEVIATION 2025- O0004. Is it acceptable if an offeror has an established corporate plan on recycling, waste reduction/prevention to meet the requirement outlined at FAR 52.223-10?

Yes, an offeror’s established corporate plan addressing recycling, waste reduction, and prevention may be acceptable to meet the requirements outline in FAR 52.223-10 (Mar 2025), provided the plan is aligned with the specific objectives and implementation criteria set for in the clause.

Offerors should ensure their plan demonstrates measurable action and compliance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations.

16 RFP Solicitation FAR FAR 52.204-7 is included in this solicitation, therefore if an Offeror certifies SAM is current, accurate, and complete as of the date of submission and chooses to use paragraph (d) of this provision, is that acceptable in lieu of providing the full Section K, barring any required fill-ins?

Yes, if an offeror has an active and current registration in the SAM and certifies that their SAM representations and certifications are accurate, complete, and current as of the date of submission, then it is acceptable for the offeror to reference paragraph (d) of FAR 52.204-8 in lieu of submitting the full section K, except for any provision that require an offeror specific fill in or are not covered in SAM. Offerors are reminded to review Section K carefully and complete any clauses or provisions that require information not captured in SAM registration.

17 RFP Solicitation Section B Option Line Item X002 for “Contractor Acquired Parts” implies that the CLIN is Firm Fixed Price, but states that “all travel must be approved in advance by the CO in accordance with the PWS paragraph 2.3.4.” PWS paragraph 2.3.4.1.3. states that travel “Be paid on a cost reimbursable basis”.

Will the Government provide further clarification on whether this CLIN is Firm Fixed Price or Cost Plus (no-fee) as described in PWS paragraph 2.3.4.1.3?

Option Line Item X003 for “Travel and TDY” implies that the CLIN is Firm Fixed Price, but states that “the contractor shall acquire supplies, parts, and materials for O&M purposes in accordance with the PWS paragraph 1.5.2.”

Everything in PWS paragraph 1.5.2 implies a Cost Reimbursable arrangement, including PWS paragraph 1.5.2.3.2.1.1.3.5 which states that we are only “allowed total part cost plus G&A percentage based on a maximum of a $10,000 part.

Will the Government provide further clarification on whether this CLIN is Firm Fixed Price or Cost Plus (no-fee) as described in PWS paragraphs 1.5.2?

Costs reimbursement arrangements under CLINs X002 series “Contractor Acquired Parts” and X003 series “Travel and TDY” are as described in PWS paragraphs “1.5.2.1” and “2.3.4.1.2”, respectively.

Target Document

Reference Question Submitted by Prospective Offerors Gov't Response/Clarification

RFP No. FA520525R0001, Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of Draughon Bombing and Electronic Attack Range, Misawa Air Base, Japan Consolidated List of Prospective Offerors' Submitted Questionnaire and U.S. Government Response/Clarification (10 Apr 25)

18 RFP Solicitation Section B Option Line Item X004 for “Deployment Support” PWS paragraph 1.4.5.7, does the $60,000 EST amount include both labor and travel?

CLIN X004 series with an estimated amount of $60,000 primarily covers travel and transportation (transportation not otherwise covered by Government TAC code (Port to Port)) in support of deployment operations, including TDY personnel costs along with overtime to meet the mission requirements in accordance with PWS paragraph 1.4.5.7. Once the requirement is identified, the contractor will be required to prepare and submit cost estimates to the government in accordance with PWS paragraph 1.4.5.7.1.7. derived from the Federal Acquisition Regulations 31.205-46.

19 RFP Solicitation Section L 4 (a) and (g) / Section D Page(s) 2 and 3

4(a-f) discusses physical copies; 4(g) states electronic copies may be submitted via email.

Section D gives instructions for physical delivery as well as electronic submittal.

The government intent to allow electronic copies via email is clearly stated. However, will the government allow DoD SAFE to be utilized for electronic copies?

DoD SAFE is not to be used for proposal submission. Refer to the Gov't Response/Clarification to Query No. 2 regarding email submission.

20 RFP Solicitation Section B Page(s) 3 through 9, Pricing Pages

CLINs XX02, XX03, and XX04

These CLINS are listed as FFP; should they be altered to be Cost Reimbursable?

Refer to the Gov't Response/Clarification to Query Nos. 12 and 17.

Sheet1