Draft RFP Questions Responses.pdf

Item RFP Reference, if given in response Question/Comment/Recommendation Government Response

Why was NAICS 541712 chosen for this acquisition? Further, why was the size standard changed from 500 employees to 1500 employees?

The NAICS was chosen to increase competition among small businesses based upon market research results and recommendations. The size standard was not changed as this NAICS allows for various size standards.

2 General The reference document AFOTEC 99-101 is dated May 2007. Will you make the September 2009 version of AFOTEC 99-101 available to bidders?

AFOTEC Manual 99-101 was updated and effective 24 Mar 10 and this version will be posted with the final RFP.

3 Section J, Task Order #

The last major update to the TCR occurred in March of 2009.

Will you consider adding the unclassified section of the 3/09 TCR to the RFP reference documents?

This task order has been removed and will be replaced with a task order for Detachment 4.

4 Section J, Task Order #2, 3.1.1

Prepare the TO proposal describing management and technical approach in support of TO performance requirements in accordance with the TO procedures set forth in Section H of the PWS.

We are unable to locate Section H of the PWS. Is the statement intended to reference Section H of the RFP?

Reference will be removed from task order PWS. Section H procedures will apply after award. Also see Question 44.

5 Section J, Task Order #2, 3.3, 3.3.4

Will you consider adding the current versions of the LAIRCM Phase II DMAP, TEMP, PMD, and LCMP to the RFP reference documents?

Unfortunately, these documents are either classified or the distribution statements do not allow release to the public. Current versions of these documents will be available to the successful offeror upon contract/TO award.

However, these documents do not limit competition or do not provide specific information to Offeror's to assist in proposing. In addition, the Government is not anticipating Offerors to include information from these documents in their specific proposals.

6 L.7.3.3.2.2 Will you consider excepting the Transition Plan from the Mission Suitability 60-page limit?

No; however the Government has changed the specifics on page limitations for the Mission Capability Volume. For the written responses to the task orders, 15 pages total with the task order management plan not to exceed (NTE) 5 pages and the task order technical proposal NTE 10 pages. For the written response to the technical solutions, the management plan is NTE 10 pages, the transition plan is NTE 5 pages, and the remainder is not to exceed 20 pages. The combined total for the Mission Capability volume is still 60 pages. Items that will be excluded from the overall page limitation are cover pages, tables, cross-reference matrix, glossaries, any position descriptions, and an OCI mitigation plan, if required. Offerors are reminded to review Section L for page limitations and exclusions.

7 L.8.2.5

A Past Performance Information Sheet is required on the Prime Offeror and each subcontractor / teaming member that will perform more than 10% of the total work of this acquisition. . . .”

“Limits on Performance Information Sheets are as follows:

If subcontractors are to be used:

- Three (3) identifying active or completed contracts, either Government or commercial, for the prime, team, and / or joint venture (within the same division or cost center.

- Two (2) from each subcontractor who will be completing at least 20% of the work

Please clarify whether we are to provide Performance Information Sheets on “each subcontractor / teaming member that will perform “more than 10% of the total work of this acquisition” or from “each subcontractor who will be completing at least 20% of the work.”

(Underlines for emphasis).

Section L will change to correctly state "each subcontractor who will be completing 20% or more of the technical work.”

8 L.9.2.10.2.3

The RFP Section requires that all worksheets shall build upon each other and shall be linked. Is the spreadsheet data for each task order in an Excel workbook required to be linked to the spreadsheet data in the other task order workbook, or is the spreadsheet data required to be linked within each task order workbook?

The spreadsheet data for each individual task order shall be linked. This linking will be useful in determining the build-up of labor rates, hours, and cost. Each task order is stand alone. The cost build up from one task order does not need to be linked to another task order. The rates and factors used to "price" each individual task order should be on current and consistent data.

9 Table L9-1

In pricing each task order by offeror’s fiscal year, what is the expected data entry required in the columns titled, “Beginning OFY” and “Ending OFY” on Table L9-1? Are the task orders to be priced by month, i.e. first month costs in “Beginning OFY” and last month costs in “Ending OFY”? Is the last column intended to be the total cumulative costs for the year, if priced by month?

Task orders do not need to be priced out on a monthly basis. "Beginning OFY" refers to the Offeror's beginning fiscal year (first fiscal year that corresponds to the required period of performance). "Ending OFY" refers to the Offeror's ending fiscal year (last fiscal year that corresponds to the required period of performance). Additionally, if less than 12 months are required to complete the Period of Performance, then place all hours in the "Beginning OFY". Further, we will need visibility into the projected cost thoughout the Period of Performance (a monthly spend plan).

10 L.9.2.10.2.6 Please identify what rates and factors are required to be submitted to DCAA for review prior to cost proposal submission, if the offeror does not have a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA).

All direct labor rates and indirect expense rates need to be submitted to the cognizant DCAA for review. If you have a current FPRA in place, then please state this in your cost proposal. Proposal submittals should incorporate the lastest FPRA, however if your company has more current cost and pricing data, then the contractor needs to submit this cost and pricing data.

11 L.9.2.10.2.7

The contract roll-up summaries are required to be submitted by contract performance period, basic, option and total contract price, and should feed the cost element summaries described in L9.2.10.2.5; however, the cost element summaries in Table L9-1 format are required to be priced by Offeror’s fiscal year instead of contract period. Please clarify if the task orders are to be priced on a performance period basis (Basic and Options), an offeror’s fiscal year basis, or both.

If the contractor's business operations cross over the stated period of performance, then the contractor will be required to provide 2 or more cost elemental breakdowns for each segment of time in a given fiscal year. This holds true for the basic award period as well as any option periods.

12 L.9.2.10.2.7.7 What travel cost ceiling amount should be included in the proposed cost for Option 1, Task Order 2?

Ceiling is identified as a per year ceiling. If Option 1 remains a partial year, costs should be prorated accordingly. However it should be noted that although Task Order 2 does not have a full period of performance for the full 4 year ordering period, additional options will be included for pricing purposes only.

13 L.9.2.10.2.3 Are loaded labor rates expected to be submitted with the CPFF task orders? No, loaded or fully burdened rates should not be submitted.

14 L.2.1.1

We respectfully request that the Government allow spreadsheet data in the Cost/Price Proposal to be presented in Arial 10 point font and formatted in accordance with the instructions to tables, charts, graphs and figures, in lieu of the Times New Roman, 12 point font specified for text?

Section L2.1.4 allows tables, charts, graphs and figures to use font that is no smaller than 10 point.

15 L.9.1.1 and L.9.2.1 Both an index and a table of contents are required to be submitted in the Cost/Price proposal. Please advise what type of data is expected to be listed in the index that is not in the table of contents.

An index is not required. Just a table of contents is needed.

Is Clause H-260 Organizational Conflict of Interest intended to prohibit A&AS contractors who provide the Government with Program Management, Engineering or other support under such vehicles as CAAS, CAPS, PASS or ETASS from bidding as a Prime or serving as a team member (subcontractor) on this opportunity?

As AFOTEC is not familiar with these particular contract vehicles, Offeror's will need to determine if a potential or actual OCI issue may exist. If so, a mitigation plan may be required to be submitted.

AFOTEC role as an independent test agency increases the importance of scrutiny for Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI). AFOTEC will follow the restrictions under federal law, including the Title 10 prohibition on contractors providing support to Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP), other restrictions in Title 10, FAR Subpart 9.5 and 3 November 2009 guidance issued by Mr Correll, SAF/AQC . AFOTEC recommends potential offerors carefully review Title 10 U.S.C. § 2399 and the sections following it. Companies which are currently serving as A&AS contractors to System Program Offices (SPOs) and inherently governmental Developmental Test (DT) Organizations are not categorically excluded from participating in AFOTEC OTES and OTES Fighter competition. Each case will be evaluated individually, and AFOTEC will endeavor to provide early review of proposed mitigation plans. AFOTEC cannot answer Offeror's questions “if standard industry firewalls will suffice” because there are no objective measures of a “standard industry firewall.”

The DD254 states general security requirements across the entire procurement. The services will be provided at AFOTEC HQ and various Detachments. At which location and at what level will secure facilities will be required?

The government will provide the secure facilities at the proper level of classification, if needed.

18 What labor categories, skill set descriptions, or other labor requirements, will be required at the HQ and various Detachments?

This is task order specific and offerors are expected to propose the labor category, skill set description and other labor requirements based on the task order scope and performance requirements

19 Will a government furnished estimate of how many FTEs or labor hours be provided for each task order, or are we to propose our own? See response to Question 18. Offerors will define labor hours.

On page 80 of the DRFP it states “Key personnel will be defined in individual task orders, as required.” What key personnel need to be offered for Task Orders 1 and 2?

Key personnel were not identified for the task orders and therefore not required.

On page 156, Section M 3.3.3.2, Relevancy Criteria, the first bullet is, “Air Force Operational Testing Activities.” Based on multiservice experience in OT&E, DT&E and JT&E can the title be changed to “DoD Testing Activities?”

Will update to specifically state "DoD Operational Testing Activities"

Will companies or teams bidding this work be able to also bid the AFOTEC Fighter OT&E Services work at Detachments 1 and 6?

Will cross-teaming be allowed? Will there be any other prohibitions concerned with the two AFOTEC services contracts?

Yes, offerors will be allowed to propose for the Fighter OTES acquisition barring any OCI issues. However, cross-teaming will be prohibited under the OTES acquisition. The intent of this prohibition is to create pure, distinct, teams that remain intact during the life of this contract and to maximize competition.

AFOTEC role as an independent test agency increases the importance of scrutiny for Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI). AFOTEC will follow the restrictions under federal law, including the Title 10 prohibition on contractors providing support to Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP), other restrictions in Title 10, FAR Subpart 9.5 and 3 November 2009 guidance issued by Mr Correll, SAF/AQC . AFOTEC recommends potential offerors carefully review Title 10 U.S.C. § 2399 and the sections following it. Companies which are currently serving as A&AS contractors to System Program Offices (SPOs) and inherently governmental Developmental Test (DT) Organizations are not categorically excluded from participating in AFOTEC OTES and OTES Fighter competition. Each case will be evaluated individually, and AFOTEC will endeavor to provide early review of proposed mitigation plans. AFOTEC cannot answer Offeror's questions “if standard industry firewalls will suffice” because there are no objective measures of a “standard industry firewall.”

23 Reference section 52-

219.28 (d):

NAICS code size standard of 500 listed in section 52-219.28 (d) disagrees with section 252.204-7007, which lists the intended 1,500 size standard

This size standard does not apply to the NAICS associated with this acquisition.

The size standard stated in paragraph d of this clause only references what the size standard is for a Contractor that provides a product that it does not manufacture itself and it does not apply to a construction or service contract.

Reference C-2 Performance Plan, Section 1, Purpose, 1.4:

Please clarify the apparent contradiction between Section 1, Purpose, 1.4, which notes there may be FFP and/or CPFF TOs, and the following other references: Section H, H-100, e.4.i only references CPFF TOs; L9.2.10.1, GENERAL, and L9.2.10.1, Cost Information, only reference CPFF TOs; CLINs listed in Section B are only for

CPFF

The Performance Plan will be updated to only reflect CPFF type task orders.

Reference L8.2.6, Past Performance Questionnaire, L8.2.6.2 Completed Questionnaires, and Attachment L4

Please provide appropriate questionnaires and forms included in the final RFP in Microsoft Word document format versus pdf to facilitate electronic completion and submission

All final RFP documents will be provided in MS Word format.

26 Reference Paragraph L2.1.1 Text: Will the Government consider 1 versus 1.5 line spacing for format? No. The 1.5 line spacing makes for easier reading.

Reference Paragraph M3.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

Please clarify the apparent contradiction between “M3.1.3 Within Factor 1, Mission Capability, the subfactor of Task Order Solutions is more important than the subfactors of Technical Solutions and Management Approach. The subfactors of Technical Solutions and Management Approach are of equal importance” and “M3.2.3 MISSION CAPABILITY SUBFACTORS The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s capability to fulfill the OTES technical requirements. The Mission Capability Subfactors are considered to be of equal importance.”

M3.2.3 will be updated to reflect M3.1.3.

Reference Paragraph

4.1.4 Unacceptable

Performance and QAP

This paragraph discusses disputes regarding Corrective Action Reports. It does not really define a final authority on the decisions.

The paragraph suggests a "consensus" is reached among the parties but does not address what happens if the parties cannot agree. Who will be the final determining authority?

In regards to a Corrective Action Report, the final determining authority would be the Contracting Officer. In regards to CPARS, the final determining authority is the Functional Commander/Director.

Reference Task Order #1, 4.0 Performance Reporting table, and Task Order #2, Table

4.1 Service Summary

The contractor is allowed "less than 2" formal customer complaints/contract discrepancy reports per year for all task orders.

Does this introduce a fractional factor, or is the limit actually one (1)?

This will be updated to reflect "no more than 2 per task order."

30 Reference L7.3.1 Task Order Solutions

How many RFTOPs will be in included in the final RFP and what efforts will they involve? What is the projection on the number of RFTOPs that will be released after contract award in the first year?

Two; same as the draft RFP. However at this time, it is impossible to provide a projection of what may be awarded during the first year of performance. All that is known at this time is that additional task orders will be awarded after contract award.

Reference Section J, AFOTEC A-5/8R Test Capability Resource Development (TCRD),

1.0 Scope

Please post the latest Test Capability Roadmap for reference See response to Question 3.

Reference M3.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

M3.4 is missing or the section is incorrectly numbered The section numbering will be corrected.

33 Reference Industry Day Briefing

During the industry briefing, AFOTEC/A7K said for bidders to win a contract they had to win a Task Order. Is this still the case? No; an award may be made to an Offeror without a task order.

34 Reference Industry Day Briefing

During the industry briefing, it was noted that all positions to be transitioned would be known before the RFP is released. Has AFOTEC made those determinations and, if so, what are the positions by type and location?

Positions to be in-sourced are known and have not been included as part of the OTES requirement.

Reference L.8.2.5, Past Performance Information Sheets and Attachment L.2 – Present and Past Performance Information

Paragraph L.8.2.5 states that each Past Performance Information Sheet is limited to two pages. Since the Contract Data (I.e., Contract information and Points of Contact) portion of Attachment L.2 takes up almost a full page, would the Government consider amending the requirement in Paragraph L.8.2.5 to read, The “Description of Effort” portion of the Past Performance Information Sheet will be limited to two pages?

The overall limit will be increased to three (3) pages: one (1) page for the table and not to exceed two (2) pages for the narrative portion.

36 L.6.2.7

In order for the PCO to request clearance from the appropriate OFCCP regional office, the Attachment in Section J shall be completed and submitted with the Contract Documentation Package.

Please provide the referenced attachment.

The attachment will be provided with the Final RFP.

37 L.7.3.3.1.3

Key personnel used to support this contract and their specific experience and skills relevant to this effort. Provide nameless resumes to fulfill this requirement.

If an Offeror’s Program Manager is designated as key personnel, should the Program Manager’s resume and subsequent discussion in the proposal also be nameless?

As key personnel are not identified for either task order, this will be updated to reflect position descriptions must be submitted for all direct personnel supporting technical positions. A position description briefly describes the key or major duties and responsibilities of a position. It should include the level of experience and education level necessary to fill the position. It should not include names nor should it read like a resume.

38 Attachment L2 May we assume that Attachment L2 is a table and that Times New Roman 10 point font is appropriate?

Yes; Section L2.1.4 allows tables, charts, graphs and figures to use font that is no smaller than 10 point.

39 RFP 6.1, Pg 27

Paragraph states that the Contractor’s Quality Control Program requirements are defined in paragraph 3.1.2 of the OTES PWS.

Should the definition also include paragraphs 3.1.3 and 3.1.4? Please clarify.

Yes, the Performance Plan will be updated for clarification.

40 DD-254, Pg 52 Is secure communications equipment required in contractor’s facilities at all locations?

If the contractor proposes to transfer or process classified or sensitive information via electronic methods to/from the contractor's facility at the locations identified in Block 8a of the DD-254, the answer to this question is yes.

However, this equipment will not be provided as CAP or GFP.

41 H-130(c), Pg 70 To comply with paragraph C, is it the intention of the Government to provide direct charge funding for interviews and orientations?

No, a direct charge will not be required. This particular clause is only applicable at the end of the OTES performance period. Where whoever has received an award would make time, as requested, for their employees to be interviewed for a successor contractor to OTES.

42 L6.2.2, Pg 124

Last sentence states “List all locations where work is to be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor, and the percentage of work to be performed at each location.” The percentage of work at each location is directly dependent on the task orders awarded to the offeror. Please clarify.

This sentence will be removed and clarified further.

43 L7.3, Pg 125 The organization for Volume II requires a concise narrative of the volume prior to the Table of Contents. Would the Government consider excluding the narrative from the volume page limitation?

No, see answer to Question 6 for changes to page limitations.

44 L7.3.1, Pg 126 Should the offeror follow the Task Order Proposal Procedures contained in H-100e in responding to L7.3.1?

No, Offerors should only follow Section L to respond to the RFP.

H-100 is only included to reference task order proposal instructions after contract award.

45 L7.3.1, Pg 126 In consideration of the page limitations, would the Government consider allowing the offeror to cross reference the past performance in Volume III in responding to H-100e.3?

No. See response to Question 44 regarding H-100.

46 L7.3.3.1.9, Pg 126 L7.3.3.1.9 appears to be a duplicate requirement to L7.3.3.1.2 second sentence. Please clarify. The second sentence of paragraph L7.3.3.1.2 will be deleted.

47 L7.3.3.1.10, Pg 127 Does the Government consider the Position Descriptions required by L7.3.3.1.10 to be the skill set descriptions referenced in L2.1.2 and are the excluded from the maximum page limits?

Yes. L2.1.2 will be updated to reflect position descriptions.

48 L7.3.3.2, Pg 127

The response to the transition plan requires the offeror to provide substantial information. Would the Government consider excluding the transition plan from the maximum page limit of Volume II or assigning an additional page limit for the transition plan above the Vol II 60 page limit?

No. See answer to Q6 for changes to page limitations.

49 L7.3.3.2.2, Pg 127 Is the resume the offeror may include in this section also a “nameless” resume as required in L7.3.3.1.3?

This will be updated to reflect position descriptions rather than nameless resumes. See response to Question 37.

50 L7.3.3.2.6, Pg 127

Paragraph states, “Proposed cost for transition effort. All costing data shall be included in the task order proposals, to be provided in Vol IV.” Since this transition effort deals with the overall contract, not a specific task order, where should the offeror address these costs, if any, in Vol IV? Please clarify.

Transition is directly related to task order efforts with individual costs. These costs should be included in the cost proposals as part of Vol IV.

51 L8.2.2, Pg 128

Paragraph states “Each offeror is requested to submit the Present and Past Performance Volume for each relevant contract 5 calendar days prior to the date set for proposals…” Two questions:

a) In Table L31.1 the title of the Volume is Past Performance. Would the Government clarify the correct volume title?

b) Can the phrase “for each relevant contract be interpreted “with all relevant contracts”?

a) The volume title is Past Performance. A correction will be made to para L8.2.2 for uniformity.

b) Yes NOTE: The Past Peformance volume will not be due earlier than the date set for proposals.

52 L8.2, Pg 128 The Glossary for Volume III is not listed in the required contents.

Should it follow the Table of Contents similar to that required for Volume II (ref L7.3)?

Yes. This will be updated.

53 L8.2.5, Pg 129

The numerical requirement for Past Performance Sheets is a bit unclear.

The first paragraph requires Past Performance Information Sheets from the Prime and any Subcontractor anticipated doing more than 10% of the total work.

The second paragraph limits the number of Past Performance Sheets to seven.

The third paragraph provides two cases. The first is 3 from the prime and 2 from any subcontractor anticipated to do at least 20% of the work. The second condition is 5 from the Prime if there are no subcontractors.

What is the requirement from the prime and subcontractors when there are subcontractors and they are anticipated to do more than 10% but less than 20% of the work? Please clarify.

See response to Question 7.

54 L.8.4, Pg 130 Should the required information be included in the Summary Page for the offeror or a separate section (Tab) following the List of Questionnaire Recipients?

Included in the Summary Page. Section will be updated.

55 L.8.5, Pg 130 Is this information to be part of the Past Performance Sheet or a separate section (Tab) following the List of Questionnaire Recipients?

Part of the Past Performance Information Sheet. Section will be updated.

56 L9.2.3, Pg 132 Please clarify if a DCAA approved purchasing system a requirement? And what is expected to be purchased?

The concept of a DCAA approved purchasing system has to do more with (in this procurement) the ability of the prime contractor to subcontract. In this procurement, if the Contractor has an approved purchasing system, the prime contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before placing subcontracts over $100,000.00, if the subcontractor has not already been evaluated as part of the RFP.

57 L9.2.5, L9.2.6, Pg 132 L9.2.5 and L9.2.6 are missing. Please clarify. The government will re-number the paragraphs.

58 Attachment 2, Pg 139 To ease proposal preparation, would the Government consider providing Attachment L-2 as an MS Word document? See response to Question 25.

59 Attachment 2, Pg 139

Instructions indicate that the Past Performance Citation number should normally be the contract number. The form also has a cell for the contract number. This is a duplication of information. Would the Government consider modifying the sheet to delete the Contract Number line and move the contract type cell?

The Government agrees that it is duplication of information. However the contract number is not required to be the citation number. Offerors may use any number for the citation number. But Offerors are reminded the citation number is used as a reference for Attachment L6.

60 Attachment 2, Pg 139 The description of effort cell appears to be 10pt single space. Is this the correct format for the offeror to respond to this section?

Yes; Section L2.1.4 allows tables, charts, graphs and figures to use font that is no smaller than 10 point.

61 Attachment 3, Pg 141 To ease proposal preparation, would the Government consider providing Attachment L-3 as an MS Word document? See response to Question 25.

62 Attachment 4, Pg 142 To assist Past Performance POC’s in filling out the questionnaire, would the Government consider providing Attachment L-4 as an MS Word document?

See response to Question 25.

63 Attachment 5, Pg 148 To ease proposal preparation, would the Government consider providing Attachment L-5 as an MS Word document? See response to Question 25.

64 Attachment L-6, Pg

The second sentence of the instruction does not appear to match the format of the Relevancy Matrix provided. Please clarify. Sentence updated for clarity.

65 L8.2.3, Pg 129 The last sentence requires information to be provided on the Offeror and major subcontractors/team members as necessary. Delete "as necessary".

66 M3.3.2, Pg 155 To help small businesses that will not have large incumbent business incumbent support, would the Government consider contracts ongoing or completed within the last 5 years instead of 3?

No; as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) only allows for 3 years of data, this will stay limited to 3 years.

67 L1.11

The RFI listed a $300M ceiling; the RFP references a $40M ceiling.

Can you clarify the disparity between the large decreases in funding?

Does the government not expect any new program requirements? Is the intent to raise the shared contract ceiling if new programs have test and evaluation requirements?

The RFI ceiling was based on anticipated Government requirements for services.

The disparity between the two is due to the Secretary of Defense’s initiative, Resource Management Decision (RMD) 802 to reduce the budget through in-sourcing. This is aimed at reducing the funding for service contracts. AFOTEC is unable to predict new program requirements. It is not the intent of the Government to raise the ceiling for new programs.

68 1.4, Pg 15 The OTES contract is a multiple award IDIQ. Has the government made a decision on how many awards there will be?

AFOTEC intends to award two (2) or more contracts, however AFOTEC reserves the right to award one or none at all based on the evaluation of offers received.

69 M4.0, Pg 160

Offerors will be excluded for all task order selections until all awardees have received at least 1 task order award. Will the initial task orders be of similar size, scope and value? The question becomes which task order will be sole sourced?

Initial task orders may be of similar size, scope and value. No initial task orders will be sole sourced.

70 L1.11

With respect to the decrease in shared ceiling, does this value reflect the contractor to civil service conversions? Is there a schedule for the conversions? What task orders will be affected by the conversions? What will the notification timeline be for awarded task orders that conversions will effect?

Contractor to civil service conversions is one reason for the decrease in shared ceiling (See response to Question 67). All known conversions through FY15 will not be included in the OTES requirement.

71 H260, Pg 76 Will bidding as a prime or sub on the OTES procurement eliminate you from bidding on any other AFOTEC procurement, if so which ones?

No further restrictions known at this time.

AFOTEC role as an independent test agency increases the importance of scrutiny for Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI). AFOTEC will follow the restrictions under federal law, including the Title 10 prohibition on contractors providing support to Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP), other restrictions in Title 10, FAR Subpart 9.5 and 3 November 2009 guidance issued by Mr Correll, SAF/AQC . AFOTEC recommends potential offerors carefully review Title 10 U.S.C. § 2399 and the sections following it. Companies which are currently serving as A&AS contractors to System Program Offices (SPOs) and inherently governmental Developmental Test (DT) Organizations are not categorically excluded from participating in AFOTEC OTES and OTES Fighter competition. Each case will be evaluated individually, and AFOTEC will endeavor to provide early review of proposed mitigation plans. AFOTEC cannot answer Offeror's questions “if standard industry firewalls will suffice” because there are no objective measures of a “standard industry firewall.”

72 L1.11, Pg 121

With respect to the reduction in contract ceiling, would the government consider a single award IDIQ vehicle? This would reduce the contracting and selection burden associated with multiple awards, from an industry point of view, this would increase your small business competition and lower costs associated with a multiple award. Rationale: more small businesses will submit proposals on a single award contract.

FAR 16.504(c)(2)(i) requires multiple awards for A&AS contracts over 3 years in length and greater than $11.5M in cost.

73 M4.0, Pg 160 Will the government provide a task order proposal schedule? Also will the government provide micro industry days prior to every

RFTOP?

A task order proposal schedule is not available. Also, micro industry days will be dependent on TO complexity.

74 PWS Para 3.1.1.

Will there be a provision in the final OTES RFP that describes how program management costs at the contract level, such as our Program Manager’s involvement working overall OTES contract issues or our proposing to individual task orders will be addressed

Proposal costs for individual TOs before and after OTES award are to be part of their B&P costs as AFOTEC is not requiring Offerors to propose on every TO.

If and Offeror proposes and does not receive a TO award, there is no direct charge for those costs.

75 DD 254. Section 13.

Does the Government intend to list the period of performance for the OTES contract in this section to simplify the execution of the DD 254 process over the life of the OTES contract?

No, as the period of performance is already included in Section F of the RFP and subsequent contract.

76 Section H-100

The text on the page after Table 2 of Section H-100 and before Section H-110 repeats number (5) Travel Ceiling and Fee. Is there a page or other information missing in this part of the draft RFP, or is the item not sequential?

Delete travel from para 4.

77 Section L2.1.5.

Would the Government allow offerors to modify/add elements to the Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment L-1) as long as the required elements are addressed?

The cross reference matrix will be completed for the final RFP release. Offeror's will only be required to complete their portion of the matrix.

78 Section L9.2.10.2.3.

Can the Government please clarify the requirement of ensuring all rate data and estimating factors used in the proposal have been submitted for review by the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency prior to cost proposal submission? Does this requirement only pertain to approved Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPR) if the company has such agreement established with DCAA?

All direct labor rates and indirect expense rates need to be submitted to the cognizant DCAA for review. If you have a current FPRA in place, then please state this in your cost proposal. Proposal submittals should incorporate the lastest FPRA. However if no FPRA exists, then submit the cost data (pool and base amounts) to the cognizant DCAA for review. This will represent an early and additional submittal on the part of the prime contractor and subcontractor, for ths effort.

79 Section H-270 and H- 100.

Since key personnel are determined at each task order level, and proposed personnel are to submit nameless resumes and/or position descriptions for proposed personnel, how will key personnel be specifically individually identified?

See response to Question 37.

80 Section H-270 Would the Government consider corporate promotion or corporate/task performance-based actions to constitute an acceptable substitution/replacement event?

No, Offeror's will still be required to submit the required information.

Performance Plan, Section 1.4 & Section H, H-100

Will the Government clarify whether the task orders issued will be CPFF (as stated in Section H, H-100, e.4.i) or FPP and /or CPFF (as stated in Performance Plan, Section 1.4)?

Only CPFF type task order will be issued. Sections will be updated to provide clarity.

82 Performance Plan, Section 3.9

Performance Plan, Section 3.9 states “Any personnel that observes unquestionable services; incomplete; not performed, or preformed improperly, should immediately contact the QAP.”

Is the phrase “unquestionable services” a typographical error? If not, can the government provide a definition of what “unquestionable services” means?

This is a typo, the Performance Plan will be updated to change "unquestionable" to "questionable".

83 Performance Plan, Section 4.2.2

Performance Plan, Section 4.2.2 state “A departure from established or standards having little bearing on the service provided.”

Is there a term missing prior to the word “or”?

The word "procedures" is missing. Performance Plan will be updated to correct omission.

84 Section H-100, a.3.

Section H, H-100, a.3. states the methods the Government will transmit RFTOPs to the contractors. Would the government provide the method(s) preferred for the contractor to submit proposals, or no-bids, back to the Government?

Yes. The RFTOP will provide the preferred method(s) to submit task order proposals.

85 Section H-270

Section H-270 states all personnel must be listed, no substitutions, etc. Section (a) implies this is a contract level requirement. The final sentence (under the example table) implies Task Order level requirement.

Would the Government provide a definition of Key Personnel for purposes of this contract?

This clause is a task order level requirement, not a contract level requirement.

86 Section H-270

Section H-270 (a) states that key personnel on this contract must be listed in the Paragraph (e) that follows. Following the table in Section (e), a note is inserted that implies this requirement pertains to Task Orders.

Does this Section H-270 refer only to proposal requirements at the Task Order level, or does the Government require as part of this contract level proposal a list of all possible/probable current prime and subcontractor personnel that may be assigned to Tasks Orders under this contract.

See response to Question 85.

87 Section H-270

Section H-270 Key Personnel: indicates that no personnel substitutions may be made unless due to illness, death or termination.....however para (d) talks about replacing key personnel who have been "reassigned, terminated, or otherwise become unavailable for contract work".

Will the government clarify when personnel substitutions can be made?

Substitutions can be made, however they must be approved by the Contracting Officer if they are identified as Key Personnel. If they are not identified as Key Personnel, no approval is necessary.

88 Section H-280

Section H-280 Contractor Min/Max: States the maximum for all orders issued will be $40M; the Letter Attachment at L-3 states that this is a 4 year, $45M acquisition.

Can the government clarify which figure is correct?

$40M is the correct ceiling. Attachment L3 will be updated.

89 Section J – Task Orders #1 and #2

Section J – Task Orders #1 and #2. Section 5.4.1 Management Plan.

Does the Government require a separate Section 5.4.1 Management Plan deliverable IAW CDRL A001 for each of the two Sample Task orders? If so, is the deliverable excluded from the 15-page limitation?

1) Yes, a Mgmt Plan is required to be submitted with the Task Orders;

2) No, the task order management plan is specific to the task order.

Offerors are reminded that a total of 3 management plans will be submitted with your response to the RFP. For subfactor 3, the management plan is for the overall contract management approach. Each task order requires a management plan that specifies the management approach for the specific task order. The task order management plan should follow the overall contract management plan, but should not just simply restate it or it should not simply reference the overall plan.

NOTE: The task orders included in the RFP are NOT samples. These are REAL task orders that will be awarded with the main contract.

90 Section J – Task Orders #1 and #2.

Section J – Task Orders #1 and #2. Key Personnel and Resumes.

There is no specific requirement listed in the Sample Task Orders to list key personnel for the Task or to provide Resumes. Does the Government require either, or both, of these be included in the two Sample Task Order Proposal submissions? If Resumes are included in the Sample Task Order proposal submissions, is there a page count limitation for each resume? A maximum number of resumes to be included? Do the resumes count toward the 15 page limitation?

1) Resumes are not required for the task order proposals as key Personnel were not identified for either Task Order;

2) Resumes are only required to be submitted if key personnel are identified for the specific task orders. However, position descriptions are required to be submitted as part of the management approach. Currently Section L7.3.3.1.3 will be updated to reflect position descriptions must be submitted for all direct personnel supporting technical positions.

NOTE: The task orders included in the RFP are NOT samples. These are REAL task orders that will be awarded with the main contract.

91 Section J – Sample Task Order #2.

Would the Government clarify the difference between Section 3.1, Management Requirements and Section 5.4.1, Management Plan in Section J, Sample Task Order #2.?

A management plan is required to be submitted for each task order within the RFP Section J. This plan should follow the management plan for Subfactor 3 and should explain how the contractor proposes to perform the management requirements of PWS Section 3.1.

NOTE: The task orders included in the RFP are NOT samples. These are REAL task orders that will be awarded with the main contract.

92 Section L7.3.1.1

As stated in Table L3.1.1, the Mission Capability Volume is limited to 60 pages. Section L7.3.1.1 indicates that each of the Sample Tasks are limited to 15 pages. With 2 sample tasks as currently included in the draft RFP, the sample tasks will use up to one-half the total pages of the volume. The remainder of Section L7 is very detailed and requires extensive information for government evaluation. 30 pages does not appear adequate, especially with the formatting requirements of this RFP.

Would the government consider a page limitation of 15 pages for each sample task and an additional 60 pages for all other required information in the Mission Capability Volume, excluding cover pages, tables, cross-reference matrix, glossaries, and any skill set descriptions?

The page limitation will not change, however see response to Question 6.

NOTE: The task orders included in the RFP are NOT samples. These are REAL task orders that will be awarded with the main contract.

93 Section L8.2.5

In L8.2.5, the first sentence states that Past Performance Information Sheets are required for any “subcontractor/teaming member that will perform more than 10% of the total work of this acquisition.”

However, in the third paragraph of this section, second bullet, it states “at least 20% of the work.”

Will the government clarify at what percentage of work the Past Performance Information Sheets are required of subcontractor/teaming members?

See response to Question 7.

94 Section M1.0.

Would the Government clarify Section M1.0, Introduction, regarding the meaning of the partial sentence “this 100% small business set-aside competitive full trade-off source selection”? Does 100% indicate all subcontractors to the Small Business prime must also be small business?

This is a 100% small business set-aside. Meaning, the awardee (prime) must be a small business under the NAICS code for this acquisition. It does not mean subcontractors must be a small business. Also see FAR Clause 52.219-14, Limitation of Subcontracting.

95 Section M4.0

Tradeoff Methodology: This section currently indicates that if an offeror wins one TO, that offeror will be excluded from other task order selections until all awardees have received at least one TO award.

Would the Government clarify Section M4.0, Trade Off Methodology, regarding a selected offeror on a Task Order will be excluded from all other Task Order selections until all awardees have received at least 1 task order award? Is it the Governments intent that no offeror on this contract can be awarded both Sample Task #1 and Task #2? If so – is it required that an offeror submit a proposal for both of the Sample Tasks? Additionally, please clarify that it is the Governments intent that an offeror selected for a Task will not be asked to propose future Task Order work until all of the multiple awardees have been awarded a task, possibly by-passing a prime that is clearly the most qualified to perform the new task?

1) Government anticipates award to two or more offerors. No offeror on this contract can be awarded both task #1 and task #2, if multiple awards are made.

2) Offerors are required to submit proposal for both task orders as stated in Section L.

3) If an award is made to an Offeror who did not receive a task order at time of award, then it is anticipated that offeror will receive the next task order, if they are found to be qualified and cost-competitive.

NOTE: The task orders included in the RFP are NOT samples. These are REAL task orders that will be awarded with the main contract.

96 PWS 1.0 – Page 6, Scope

Are Unmanned Aerospace Systems (UAS) included in the scope of this contract? Yes

H100, i. Para 5 – Page 69, Task Ordering Procedures

Para 5 states that fee will be separately negotiated for each TO and not be set at contract level. Does that apply to ODC fee? It's defined as 3% in Section B, CLIN 0002.

It applies to both the ODC fee and overall task order fee. However, as defined in Section B, the ODC fee will be limited to 3%. H-100 will be updated for clarity.

Section H-260, Para c.1. i. and ii. – Page 78, OCI Rules

The referenced paragraphs state "The Contractor agrees that…has participated in (or is participating in) the development, production, or testing of a system, an actual/potential conflict of interest will be presumed."

Please clarify what is meant by "testing" in this reference and how that testing creates an OCI with AFOTEC's OT&E mission under this contract.

LC: Federal law provides strict limitations on the ability of contractors to conduct OT&E on weapons systems they developed. In the view of AFOTEC, careful evaluation of OCI is required if a prospective contractor developed, produced or tested a system and nows seeks to support OT&E on the same system.

AFOTEC role as an independent test agency increases the importance of scrutiny for Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI). AFOTEC will follow the restrictions under federal law, including the Title 10 prohibition on contractors providing support to Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP), other restrictions in Title 10, FAR Subpart 9.5 and 3 November 2009 guidance issued by Mr Correll, SAF/AQC . AFOTEC recommends potential offerors carefully review Title 10 U.S.C. § 2399 and the sections following it. Companies which are currently serving as A&AS contractors to System Program Offices (SPOs) and inherently governmental Developmental Test (DT) Organizations are not categorically excluded from participating in AFOTEC OTES and OTES Fighter competition. Each case will be evaluated individually, and AFOTEC will endeavor to provide early review of proposed mitigation plans. AFOTEC cannot answer Offeror's questions “if standard industry firewalls will suffice” because there are no objective measures of a “standard industry firewall.”

99 Section H-270 – Page 79, Key Personnel

The requirements in subsection (c) states "All substitutions proposed during the duration of this contract must have qualifications of the person being replaced." Please revise to state, "All substitutions proposed during the duration of this contract must meet contractual qualifications for the labor category."

As position description will not be a part of the official contract/task orders, contractual qualifications cannot apply. Language will remain the same.

100 Section H-270 – Page 79, Key Personnel

Subsection (e) limits circumstances for adding personnel. Request the Government expand to include a change in the scope of the task order or contract.

This clause only applies to those task orders where it will be called out. If key personnel have not been identified for the specific task order, this clause does not apply.

101 Section I – Page 82, Contract Clauses

52.219-8 calls out a deviation. Please provide the deviation in the final RFP.

The deviation is the clause. Please see the FARsite referenced in clause 52.252- 2 for specific information.

102 Section J – Page 100, PWS Numbering

The PWS numbering in task order 1 is incorrect for the subrequirements under 3.2 and 3.3. The PWS numbering in task order 2 is incorrect for the subrequirements under 3.3 and 3.4.

Request this be corrected in the final RFP

Numbering is intentional and refers to corresponding contract PWS requirements.

L7.3 – Page 125, Mission Capability Volume

Does the "concise narrative of the volume" count toward the 60-page limitation? See response to Question 6.

L7.3.1.1 – Page 126, Mission Capability Volume: Subfactor One – Task Order Solutions

"Page limitation for the written task order proposals shall not exceed 15 pages for each task order proposal."

Please clarify if the 15 pages per task order counts toward the 60-page limitation of the volume.

Yes, the 15 pages do count towards the 60 page limitation. See response to Question 6 for additional information.

L7.3.1.1 – Page 126, Mission Capability Volume: Subfactor One – Task Order Solutions

"Offeror's shall submit management, technical, and cost proposals for each task order provided in Section J of the RFP." "Proposals need to address each subfactor in each Task Order."

Please clarify if we need to address each requirement under Subfactor Two: Technical Solution (L7.3.2.1 - L7.3.2.2) and Subfactor Three: Management Approach (L7.3.3.1 - L7.3.3.2.6) in each of the task order proposals. If all requirements must be addressed in each task order (versus in the subfactor sections of the Mission Capability volume), we request that the page limitation for both task orders be increased to accommodate the response.

Subfactors 2 and 3 are contract level requirements and will be evaluated as such.

The Technical Solution subfactor relates only to those contract PWS requirements not addressed by task order PWS requirements. The Management Approach subfactor requirement is to submit an overall contract level management plan. Each task order requires a management plan that is specific to that task order, but also follows the overall contract level management plan.

Also see response to Question 6.

L7.3.2.1 – Page 126, Mission Capability Volume: Subfactor Two – Technical Solution

"Offeror's shall submit a written proposal detailing how their company shall meet the government's technical requirements not captured by the task order performance work statements."

The task order (TO) PWSs map fairly accurately to the overall PWS, with the exception that not all overall PWS requirements are called out in the TOs.