Responses to Draft PWS Posting OTES Jan 10.pdf

Q1: Is there an incumbent? If so, is the incumbent eligible to bid in the contract?

A1: Yes, this is a follow‐on effort to the Engineering and Technical Services contract which has four (4) large business incumbents. After careful market research, AFOTEC determined this requirement should be a total small business set aside. Thus, incumbents would be able to work with small businesses as subcontractors or create teaming arrangements as all the incumbents are large businesses.

Q2: How much was the contract for?

A2: The prior ETS contract was awarded as a multiple award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) with a shared ceiling of $500M.

Q3: With the NAICS code of 541712, what is the size standard?

A3: The size standard used is 1,500 employees.

Q4: The Core Competencies in the RFI (released 6/17/09) included Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Engineering; the current Draft PWS does not. Is it your intention to compete CBRNE under a future Small Business set‐aside?

A4: Not at this time. The Army has primary responsibility for CBRN OT&E.

Q5: Similarly, support to fighter programs, which was included in the 6/17/09 RFI, is not included in the Draft PWS. Is it your intention to compete support to Detachments 1 and 6 as a Small Business procurement separately, at a later date?

A5: As this question is out of scope of the current OTES requirement, we are unable to provide any details. However, it is anticipated a separate announcement will be posted on FedBizOps.

Q6: If you will be competing support to Detachments 1 and 6 as a full and open procurement, will you restrict / prohibit cross teaming? Recent DoD multiple award IDIQ procurements such as the Missile Defense Agency MiDAESS have prohibited full and open primes from also being subcontractors to small business primes supporting the same customer. Understanding whether there will be a restriction on cross teaming will enable us to finalize our OTES teaming arrangements.

A6: See Question #5 answer.

Q7: Will you require Small Business utilization subcontracting goals of the small business primes on the

OTES?

A7: This effort will be a 100% small business set‐aside so, subcontracting goals are not required.

Q8: Under PWS Section 2.0 Applicable Documents, it states in part “Each task order will identify unique guidance not contained herein.” Who is responsible for identifying unique guidance for each task order? Who provides this guidance?

A8: The AFOTEC Detachment customer (using organization) is required to identify any unique guidance.

For example, AFOTEC Det 4 tests space systems and AFOTEC Det 5 tests bombers and UAS. Each Detachment would provide their specific requiring the task. The guidance will be provided under a separate Task Order Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Q9: Under PWS Section 3.4 Test Execution, paragraph 3.4.2, it states “Provide airspace/range management services such as providing airspace management for manned aircraft . . .”

Please clarify what types of airspace/range management services are inclusive in this requirement (e.g., scheduling of airspace and ranges).

A9: Service includes understanding range requirements, capabilities, and limitations; coordinating range and test schedules; confirming a particular test point is complete and ready; confirming range setup is adequate; observing the test; and resolving issues that occur in order to maximize test execution success.

Q10: Under PWS Section 4.0, Table 4.1, fourth row, PWS reference 3.1.1, Performance Threshold "No customer complaints". Please clarify what constitutes a complaint.

A10: A verbal or written complaint of any kind addressed directly to the COTR or Contracting Officer.

Q11: Under PWS Section 4.0 ,Table 4.1, third row, PWS reference 3.1.1, Performance Threshold “Personnel turnover rate not to exceed 10% annually”. How is this measured? Fiscal year across all task orders, calendar year or monthly on a sliding year scale? Is there a grace period for transition between transition of previous and current contract?

A11: This specific performance threshold is being removed in it’s entirety. A Key Personnel clause will be included in the RFP. For those task order that require key personnel to be identified, this clause will be included in those task orders that require the Government to monitor turnover of contractor personnel.

Q12: Will all work be via Task Order or will some be defined at contract award?

A12: All work will be via Task Order. It is anticipated that there will task orders awarded at the time of contract award and Offeror’s will be required to propose on those task orders identified in the final RFP.

Q13: Will government owned models be made available to assist in completing the requirements for environmental suitability of PWS paragraph 3.5.4?

A13: Only if PWS paragraph 3.5.4 is included in the Task Order PWS and the model/model documentation is identified in section 2 (Applicable Documents) and 5 (Government Furnished Property) of the Task Order PWS.

Q14: Will there be another Industry Day?

A14: No, another Industry Day is not planned.

Q15: Will there be a draft RFP and an opportunity for questions afterwards?

A15: It is anticipated a Draft RFP to be released the week of 2 February 2010.

Q16: Is there an expected date for issue of the RFP?

A16: The Final RFP is anticipated to be released the first week of March 2010.

Q17: Information to this point indicates the cost ceiling is $300M. Has this amount been revised? Has the scope of work, the approximate number of FTEs per Detachment, been determined?

A17: The draft RFP will address the anticipated contract ceiling. The scope of work remains as stated in the PWS. The approximate number of FTEs per Detachment has been determined for government planning purposes only. Offerors need to propose personnel resources available to work this effort.

Q18: Will there be another RFP for the fighter programs supported by Detachments One and Six, and if so, is there an expected date of issue?

A18: See Question #5 answer.

Q19: Under PWS Section 4.0, Table 4.1, Service Summary, third row. This row addresses maintaining a stable workforce to accomplish the PWS/Task Order. We agree that this is a valid concern on the part of the Government. However, the key issue is whether or not a contractor can meet the objectives and requirements of the PWS/Task Order. Maintaining a specific turnover rate is not the sole guarantee of success.

We would like to see the Performance Threshold stated as follows, "The contractor will hire and retain sufficient personnel in order to meet all PWS and Task Order schedule and quality requirements". This type of threshold gives the contractor the option to use a variety of standard business practices to ensure that Government requirements are met.

A19: See Question #11.

Q20: Under PWS Section 4.0, Table 4.1, Service Summary, fifth row. This row states that cost control will be determined by actual expenditures being within a TBD percentage of the approved projected budget with the percentage determined by the COTR. Cost control is an important performance metric for cost plus types of efforts, and we support the intent of this performance objective for those types of task orders. But, cost control is not really relevant in FFP or Labor Hour type of contracts, or in many cases the government may not need this data for FFP or Labor Hour type of task orders.

We request that for those cost plus type of task orders, a single percentage or a range of percentages be provided to determine whether or not the actual expenditures on a task order are close enough to the approved projected budget. This will improve and simplify our ability to develop a cost control and reporting system to support Contracting Officer Technical Representatives at AFOTEC Detachments 2, 4, and 5 that are spread across the country.

A20: This will only apply to Cost‐Plus‐Fixed‐Fee and Cost type CLINs. Because of the diversity of task order requirements, a single percentage is considered unreasonable to establish at this time. However, a range may be feasible. Either way, this percentage or range will be established and identified on the task order PWS.

Q21: Under PWS Section 5.0, Paragraph 5.1, Government Furnished Property. This paragraph states, "When the Task Order requires the Contractor to work in a Government facility, the Government may furnish or make available working space, equipment, and network access."

Please clarify the use of the word "may" in this context. Does this statement mean the contractor will have to supply their own computers, workspace, other equipment/supplies, and network access at AFOTEC locations or provide the same capability at a corporate office that is not located at one of the AFOTEC detachment locations? Or, will this be further clarified for each task order, so that facility, equipment, and network access requirements can be bid in for each task order if necessary?

A21: There may be times were performance will not be at Government facilities. Task order will clarify whether or not this will be furnished. Currently, AFOTEC anticipates that most work will be conducted with existing government facilities with computers and workspace provided as GFE.

Q22: If this contract does not apply to fighter programs at Edwards or Nellis AFB, will there be a future AFOTEC contract to address these requirements?

A22: See Question #5 answer.

Q23: Does the exclusion of fighter programs apply only to current programs or will it also apply to future programs?

A23: See Question #5 answer.

Q24: Please clarify that UAS programs are included in the scope of this effort?

A24: UAS programs are included in the scope of this effort.

Q25: What is the approximate number of contractor FTEs currently working in this scope of work?

A25: Currently, the ETS contract has approximately 106 FTEs. This includes the HQs and all Dets and OLs. However, with the OTES scope of work being different from ETS, this information does not necessarily reflect the FTEs required under this new acquisition and therefore may not be beneficial.

The Government recommends Offerors conduct their own analysis to determine what exactly is required for OTES.

Q26: Are companies precluded from being on more than one team bidding this procurement?

A26: No and teaming is encouraged.

Q27: Will Primes be required to have offices in Albuquerque?

A27: No.

Q28: Can we expect that all work will be done in government facilities or will the Prime contractor be expected to provide work space at some Detachments and OLs?

A28: Not all work will be completed in government facilities. Work space, if needed, will be provided in government facilities.

Q29: Will companies be allowed to be a sub on this procurement and still bid any Full & Open T&E support contracts AFOTEC offers in the future?

A29: The final RFP will address this issue in the Organizational Conflict of Interest clause.

Q30: Does the government anticipate posting a draft RFP for comment prior to the final RFP release?

A30: See Question #15 answer.

Q31: What is the estimated size of this of this procurement, in terms of dollars over the 5 year period?

A31: See Question #17 answer.

Q32: The government has indicated a multiple award ID/IQ acquisition strategy. How many awards does the government anticipate for this procurement?

A32: It is anticipated that two or more awards will be made.

Q33: The government previously indicated cross‐teaming would be allowed. Will any restrictions be placed on cross‐teaming? If so, what will they be?

A33: See Question #26 answer. No restrictions are envisioned.

Q34: Does the government anticipate any changes to the solicitation acquisition strategy, to include business size with the NAICS code 541712 and, if so, what specific changes are anticipated?

A34: See Question #3 answer.

Q35: How many ID/IQ contracts are anticipated to be awarded?

A35: See Question #32 answer.

Q36: Does the government plan to specify small business participation goals for special business categories (i.e. 8(a) certified, woman‐owned, service‐disabled veteran owned, HUB Zone, etc) and, if so, what types and numbers?

A36: See Question #7 answer.

Q37: What are the Full Time Equivalent expectations regarding the overall AFOTEC OTES ID/IQ effort, to include consideration of future in‐sourcing within the entire AFOTEC community?

A37: See Question #17 & #25 answers.

Q38: Is cross‐teaming allowed on this effort?

A38: Yes and it is encouraged.

Q39: How long will the expected transition (phase‐in/out) period be?

A39: Currently the transition period is anticipated to be 30 calendar days.

Q40: What is the anticipated percentage of work to be performed on‐site at government facilities versus contractor facilities?

A40: Due to the scope and nature of the work, an actual percentage cannot be determined. However a majority of the work will be performed at government facilities.

Q41: Converting positions to “inherently Governmental”: how many total, where, and by when?

A41: This information is not releaseable.

Q42: What will the subsequent level of effort now be?

A42: See Question #41 answer.

Q43: When can we expect the Request for Proposal, with full terms and conditions included?

A43: See Questions #15 and #16 answers.

Q44: How will the F‐35/F‐22 support be acquired, and when?

A44: See Question #5 answer.

Q45: Does NAICS code 541712 implies a small business size of 500 person or less?

A45: See Question #3 answer.

Q46: Could the Air Force provide more information on operational, interface, computing and test system environments at the AFB's before the final solicitation is issued?

A46: Unfortunately, more information cannot be provided prior to final solicitation issuance. When called out, individual task order requirements will expand on this particular requirement.

Q47: Could the Air Force provide the list of attendees from the industry day?

A47: This list is posted on the previous FedBizOps posting at https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/DRU/AFOTECRMC/FA7046‐09‐R‐XXXX/listing.html.

Q48: Could the Air Force provide the list of companies interested in this solicitation?

A48: Offeror’s may look at the Interested Vendors List associated with the first two FedBizOps postings at https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/DRU/AFOTECRMC/FA7046‐09‐R‐0003/listing.html or https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/DRU/AFOTECRMC/FA7046‐09‐R‐XXXX/listing.html.

Q49: Who are the current incumbents, prime and subcontractors, performing the subject work activities?

A49: The current prime contractors are SAIC, Northrop Grumman Space & Missile Systems, ARINC and Teledyne Brown Engineering. Suggest contacting prime contractors to find out who their subcontractors are.

Q50: Are all the AFBs currently following a standard OTES process or are they different in certain ways to match their organizational structure and operational and test environments?

A50: HQ AFOTEC is centrally managing the OTES process for all detachments and OLs involved in this acquisition.

Q51: Could the Air Force provide an on‐line library for accessing all applicable and/or reference documents listed in Section 2.0?

A51: For all applicable documents, a hardcopy or website link will be posted with the final RFP.

Q52: What test tools (verification, validation and modeling) are currently being used at the AFBs?

A52: Examples of test tools being used are GIANT, STK, RAPTOR, and LCOM.

Q53: Under PWS Section 4.0, Table 4.1, Row 4 ‐ Does performance threshold implies that the contractor should not receive more than two complaints against its performance, or that the system under test should not receive more than two Discrepancy Reports (DRs) against its system design, test data, test environment, and test procedures? Does the Air Force expect the contractor to ensure that no more than two deficiency reports (DRs) are generated under any system under test under any circumstances?

Concur that the Air Force could expect the contractor to receive no more than two complaints against its performance on the testing of a system.

A53: As this is a non‐personal services contract, the contractor should not receive more than two complaints against its performance. Table 4.1 is for contractor‐provided services performance, not system performance. The number of system deficiency reports have no bearing on contractor performance.

Q54: Will the posted $300M ceiling be reduced to $100M or less with the government's current Small Business Set Aside, NAICS Code 541712, Size Standard 1500?

A54: The draft RFP will address the anticipated ceiling. For size standard, see Question #3 answer.

Q55: Which of the 541712 NAICS Code size standards will be chosen for the RFP (500, 1000, 1500)?

A55: See Question #3 answer.

Q56: Given the change of Acquisition Strategy, do you anticipate a Draft RFP release with a question and answer period?

A56: See Question #15 answer.

Q57: Is FA7046‐05‐D‐0010/0020/0030/0040 still expected to expire on 07/31/2010?

A57: At this time yes, however the Government reserves the right to extend due to mission requirements.

Q58: Where may I locate the solicitation for the follow‐on discussed under FA7046‐10‐R‐0001?

A58: All references to this solicitation will be posted on FedBizOps.