Q As_for_FBO.pdf

FA7022‐14‐R‐0012

MERC‐G Draft RFP Questions

Question Number

DRFP Section & Paragraph Number

DRFP

Page

Number Question Answer

1 N/A N/A

Can Key Personnel and Resumes be required by Offerors?

Recommended Change: Add "Provide a concise biographical sketch of your key personnel and attach their full CV/resumes." as a new paragraph L‐III.3.c (9).

Benefit to Customer: Provides specific capabilities of personnel who will be working on the program.

Key Personnel and resumes will not be required by offerors.

Paragraph L‐III,4.C.(2)a. allows for qualification summaries.

"a. Technical Disciplines. Contractor must provide a qualifications summary identifying a team with the following capabilities:" Each offeror is to determine the best way to meet the solicitation requirement.

2 Rev 1, Section A 1

Does the 14 Oct 2014 date issued on page 1, Section A indicate the release of the RFP in the next week or two?

Benefit to Customer: Provides planning information to offerors.

The RFP was released 28 Oct 2014.

Rev 1, Section M, M‐1, 1.A.(2)

What evidence would the Government desire to ensure an offeror can meet the 70% on Day 1 clearance level commitment?

Recommended Change: Offerors shall provide letters of commitment from each proposed employee, included in the bid, demonstrating the 70% clearance levels to meet Day 1 requirements.

Benefit to Customer: Ensures Government has qualified staff than can conduct the work in a meaningful and productive manner and communicate effectively with the Government.

Each offeror is to determine the best way to meet the solicitation requirement.

Section F.1 and

F.2

Is the anticipated start‐date 01 April 2015 or 01 May 2015?

Discussion: F.1 Performance schedule, Base Period 01 Apr 2015 start‐date conflicts with F.2 CLIN 0001 POP start‐date 01‐May‐2015.

Neither. The anticipated start date is now 1 Jun 2015. See the RFP posted to www.fbo.gov on 28 Oct 2014.

5 Section I

Which incumbent employees fall under the SCA and will bidders be provided the opportunity to discuss 52.222‐17 Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers with these incumbent workers?

Contract Clauses, FAR 52.222‐41, Service Contract Act Of 1965 52.222‐17 Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers.

Discussion: Considering that some of the BAE Systems (incumbent employees) may be subject to the Service Contract Act (other than any person employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity), there may be an obligation for the new contractor to apply FAR 52.222‐17 Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers.

14000 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OCCUPATIONS

14070 COMPUTER PROGRAMMER

30080 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN

30460 TECHNICAL WRITER

§541.200 ELECTRONIC CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS October 7, 2014

FAR clause 52.222‐41 has been removed from the RFP.

Draft RFP Section L & M, Performance

Work Statement

Would the Government consider providing a bidders library that includes these documents (policies, procedures, Standard Operating Procedures, and program continuity guides) used in performing MERC‐G?

Draft RFP Section L & M, Performance Work Statement Non‐public information and use of non‐public information accessed through performance of a Government contract.

Discussion: If the incumbent, BAE Systems, teams with a small business to bid MERC‐G, and provides non‐public information (AFTAC policies, procedures, Standard Operating Procedures, and program continuity guides) used to perform MERC‐G requirements to the prime teammate, such action could provide an unfair advantage in preparing their response to the MERC‐G solicitation.

There will not be a bidder's library.

Knowledge of AFTAC's exact policies, procedures, Standard Operating Procedures, and program continuity guides are not required in order to be determined technically acceptable.

7 Section M

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award (M‐I B) DOD Source Selection Procedures, 3.1.2.2. Methodology 2: Separate Technical/Risk Rating Process http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183‐10‐DPAP.pdf.

Discussion: There are many moving parts in conducting a source selection and a company’s past performance data, while important, may not be the most critical discriminator for the MERC‐G source selection. The Evaluation Factors for Award places significant importance on Past Performance (PP) history (the only “rated” factor) and Technical evaluation rated as pass or fail, therefore significant innovations presented in bidder’s technical proposals may not receive appropriate consideration in the source selection. Considering that the winning bidder will likely transition many of the incumbent staff, inclusion of “Separate Technical/Risk Rating” for the Technical Subfactors would enhance competition, bring AFTAC/TT new and innovative solutions to improve its mission posture, and should result in significant costs savings through competition—this is the same approach AFTAC/TMA used in the ADAMTD (FA7022‐13‐R‐0002) procurement.

Comment: We suggest the government include DOD Source Selection Procedure

3.1.2.2. Methodology Separate Technical/Risk Rating Process that includes:

1) technical ratings that evaluate the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement and

2) assessment of technical risk which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es) and strengths and considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, or exceptional approach.

Adopting this suggestion and assessing these technical subfactors may reveal strengths and exceptional approaches that could bring innovation and enhancements to the AFTAC/TT mission that otherwise may not be revealed.

The Performance Price Tradeoff is the approved acquisition strategy and will not be changed.

8 DD 254 Note: The attachments to DD 254 have numerous references to Building 989, in addition to the new AFTAC facility 10989.

The DD 254 has been updated. See the RFP posted to www.fbo.gov on 28 Oct 2014.

9 CDRLs

Note: Each CDRL has the following remark for Block 9: Distro authorized USG agencies only. Other requests shall be referred to AFTAC/TTX 1030 S. Highway A1A, PAFB FL 32925. Should Block 9 reference AFTAC’s current address of 10989 S. Patrick Dr, PAFB FL 32925?

The CDRLs have been updated. See the RFP posted to www.fbo.gov on 28 Oct 2014.

10 PWS 1.4

Please confirm that expectation is for contractors to work a normal 40 hour work week, performed within the normal office hours listed, with the understanding there will be times where contractors may work more than 40 hours a week to support mission requirements.

Discussion: Paragraph reads as follows: Normal office hours will run between 0600 and 1700 hours Monday through Friday. (CDRL A001, A002, A005)

Confirmed.

11 PWS 1.4.9

Please specify the expected IA certification requirements for each PWS element?

Discussion: Information Assurance Certification is a condition of employment.

This position includes information assurance (IA) work as a paramount duty requirement. Per DoD 8570.01‐M, the incumbent in this position must achieve the appropriate IA certification within six months of assignment of these duties.

A waiver of the six‐month requirement may be granted per DoD 8570.01‐M, C3.2.4.2 or C3.2.4.3. Failure to receive the proper IA certification may result in removal from this position. Based on the DoD manual cited, para C3.2.4.8.3, this certification requirement will fall on the Systems engineer(s). Table C3.T1. Notes section states “category, level, and certification requirements to be specified in the contract”.

PWS paragraph 1.4.9 has been revised. See the RFP posted to www.fbo.gov on 28 Oct 2014.

12 H‐2

Does the MERC‐G PWS provide the scope necessary to support AFTAC with A&AS of associated ANDSAS and ESAS services with a capability to detect, locate, identify, characterize, assess, and report in near‐real‐time atmospheric and space detections encompass a variety of different phenomena?

Discussion: Given that AFTAC has determined an OCI exists with ANDSAS and ESAS, and therefore acknowledging that MERC‐G may provide A&AS support to services performed under ANDSAS or ESAS “on other than seismic, hydroacoustic and infrasound sensing systems”, the current PWS could be enhanced by including ANDSAS/ESAS related skills and experience.

No. See the last sentence of PWS paragraph 1.3.7.1 Program Control—Geophysical Mission.

13 H‐2

Shouldn’t participation on SAMP or OMSS also create an OCI with MERC‐G, per FAR 9.505 and DRFP H‐2, where a contractor may not participate in the aforementioned acquisitions, or a contract providing substantially similar services?

Discussion: Given that the Seismic Station Mission Support (SSMS) is considered an OCI concern that is insurmountable and cannot be mitigated while the Seismo Acoustic Monitoring Program (SAMP) Follow‐On Contract (FA7022‐12‐R‐(SAMP)) and the Operations & Maintenance of Seismic Stations (OMSS) Contract (FA7022‐ 14‐C‐0007) are not listed but are similar in scope and oversight.

Yes. H‐2 has been updated. See the RFP posted to www.fbo.gov on 28 Oct 2014.

Correction: Contract FA7022‐14‐C‐0007 is Remote Operations Support for Seismic Array Stations ‐ West.