Questions and Answers for Industry as of 3 Dec 10.pdf

Questions and Answers for Industry as of 18 Nov 10

Fighter OTES Draft RFP and Pre-Proposal Conference

RFP will take precedence

Q1. On the DD 254, items 10g & h and 11f are marked “No.” Is this an issue with respect to the

UK’s JSF involvement (and NL as referenced on page 136, 10.2.11 and “others” as on page 142, paragraph 10.7.5 and page 154, paragraph 17.7.5)?

A. DD 254 will be updated in the final RFP. Contractor will require access to Foreign

Government Information (10h). Access to NATO information (10g) and access to

US classified information outside the U.S. (11f) are not required.

Q2. On the DD 254, item 11K is marked “No” but seems to contradict text in paragraph “Block

11h” on the DD254 Continuation Sheet.

A. The contractor will not be responsible for requesting or coordinating any courier activities accomplished by the Defense Courier Service. Contractor personnel may be required to hand carry classified information.

Q3. H-150, paragraph (c) references conflict with actual following paragraphs.

A. Corrected in the final RFP.

Q4. H-180, paragraph (a) numbering is incorrect or parts have been omitted (i.e. no (a) areas listed and no (b) reference found).

A. Corrected in the final RFP.

Q5. H-340, paragraph b references CDRL A003, but CDRL A003 is Status Report; maybe should reference CDRL A035?

A. Corrected in the final RFP. CDRL A035 is the correct reference for the Small

Business Report. Note: the current paragraph is H-350.

Q6. Are there any Phase In/Out periods for TO 2 (page 156, paragraphs 19.3.1 and 19.3.2)?

A. Transition Plans, paragraphs 19.3, 19.3.1, and 19.3.2, have been deleted from Task

Order 0002. Phase in time is not applicable to TO 2.

Q7. Request access to current ETS JSF task order technical information, such as test plans and analysis reports.

A. A Bidders Library of background information will be made available to all offerors with DD Form 2345, Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement on file. The Bidders Library will contain documents such as the F-35 TEMP and those listed in Task Order 0001 paragraph

9.2.

Q8. The Government has stated it would not release classified information. The knowledge of current issues in planning, test execution and reporting are critical to a credible proposal.

A. The Government will not release any classified background information.

Unclassified documents will be available in the Bidder’s Library.

Q9. H-100 Task Order Proposal Procedures (tailored) (MAR 2008) Paragraph C states

“Contractors are highly encouraged, although not required, to submit a proposal for every task order requirement solicited under this contract. The Contractor shall submit a “no bid” statement including brief rational for declining the opportunity…..Unless competition is limited in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2), all Contractors will receive a RFTOP.”This language does not seem consistent with a single award contract.

A. Corrected in the final RFP.

Q10. H-260 – PWS Paragraph 7.0, page 15 and RFTOP Paragraphs 14 and 21 under the sample

Task Orders reference OCI Clause H-9, rather than H-260. Recommend the Government make the references to the OCI Clause on these paragraphs reference H-260.

A. Corrected in the final RFP. The OCI clause is in Section I as AFFARS 5352.209-

9000.

Q11. What is the purpose of including the Fixed Price FAR Clause 52.243-1 ALT III “Changes

--Fixed Price (Aug 1987) – Alternate III” in a CPFF contract?

A. Corrected in the final RFP.

Q12. On Page 14, PWS Paragraph 5.5 Period of Performance states that the Ordering Period for

FOTES is 1 FEB 2011 to 21 JAN 2016. Did the Government intend that the contract end date is

31 January 2016?

A. Corrected in the final RFP. The ordering period is five years from contract award.

Q13. Paragraph L9.2.8.2.7 – SUPPORTING DETAIL. This paragraph states in the last sentence that “These detail summaries should feed the summary by cost element required by paragraph

L9.2.10.2.5” This paragraph (L9.2.10.2.5) is not in the solicitation. What is the correct paragraph reference for this statement?

A. Corrected in the final RFP. This area was reworded.

Q14. Can the Government reconsider the decision for a sole award? A sole award for an $85 million/5 year contract with potential to include many fighter systems increases the Governments risk of future organization conflicts of interest and negates any chance for competition on potentially large fighter task orders.

A. The Government determined a single award is appropriate for this acquisition.

Q15. The RFP provided two sample problems that are overly broad or complex for any offeror with the exception of the incumbent. The first sample problem has 179 paragraphs outlining requirements and the second sample problem adds an additional 83 numbered paragraph requirements.

A. Task Order 0001 is not a sample problem; it is the task order that will be awarded with the contract. Task Order 0002 is a sample and provides the Government insight on how the contractor will manage the additional contractor services needed during execution of F-35

Operational Test and Evaluation. Task Order 0001 contains 88 paragraphs that describe the task order technical requirements. Task Order 0002 contains 27 paragraphs that describe task order technical requirements. These requirements define the Advisory and Assistance Services required by the Government.

Q16. Does a single deficiency in responding to the requirements make the evaluation of an entire subfactor unacceptable?

A. Evaluation factors and subfactors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to significant requirements having an impact on the source selection decision and that are expected to be discriminators.

They are the uniform baseline against which each offerors proposal is evaluated allowing the government to make a best value determination. The evaluation factors and subfactors and their relative importance are set forth in the evaluation criteria (Section M) of the solicitation and communicate how the proposal will be evaluated and the rating determined. The evaluation factors and subfactors are the primary determinant of the detailed information requested in the solicitation’s instructions to offerors (Section L).

In addition, AFFARS 5315.305 (a)(i) states, “Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.”

A deficiency is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level (FAR 15.001). The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency or uncertainty. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government.

Q17. Can Subfactor One be answered adequately in an unclassified document?

A. All offerors are required to provide unclassified proposals as classified proposals are not allowed.

Q18. Can the Government provide current VV&A plans?

A. There are currently no fully developed VV&A plans that are releasable.

Q19. Can the Government provide a list of government furnished equipment including software in use at Det 1 and Det 6?

A. The Government will provide standard office workspace and computers with the

Microsoft Suite per clause H-150, Base Support. There is a listing of possible M&S software in the F-35 TEMP which is in the Bidder’s Library. Current software in use at Det 1 and Det 6 includes: standard Micorsoft Office Suite 2007, Adobe, JMP statistical software, MATLAB, Joint Air-to-Air Model (JAAM), JMEM Weaponeering System (JWS), AMRAAM Raytheon

Simulation (ARS), Logistics Composite Model (LCOM), Automated Airload Planning System

(AALPS), and Modular Analysis and Test Support System (MAnTSS). This list is subject to file:///C:/Users/Burtis.Spencer/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/far/FAR15.DOC%23b15001 change and is not all inclusive. Current use of this software does not guarantee it will or will not be used under this acquisition.

Q20. Can data formats and samples of aircraft, modeling and simulation, and range instrumentation data used for mission playback be provided?

A. Data formats and sample data will not be released due to developer proprietary data and classification level.

Q21. Can country Memorandums of Understanding be provided?

A. Yes. Only one currently exists and is included in the Bidder’s Library.

Q22. Can the Government change the RFP to a Performance Price Tradeoff source selection?

A. No. After consideration, the Government determines to use the source selection procedures in accordance with AFFARS Mandatory Procedures, 5315.3, Source Selection. Best value source selections procedures mentioned are the appropriate approach to meet AFOTEC’s requirements.

Q23. Can the forms referenced the Performance Plan be provided?

A. Yes. They will be included in the final RFP.

Q24. Is the evaluation criteria for TO 0001 and TO 0002 contained in Section M or will there be evaluation criteria within the TO as described in H-100e?

A. Section M evaluation criteria are applicable to Task Orders 0001 and 0002 in the source selection phase.

Q25. Can clause H-260 be amended to provide the exemptions to contractor participation as provided for in 10 USC 2399? It states that a contractor who supports development testing has a presumed actual conflict of interest with supporting operational testing.

A. No. After consideration, this clause stands as written.

Q26. In clause H-340, is the Government's intent that 20% of the total annual technical dollars are subcontracted to small business?

A. H-340 is deleted and an updated clause H-350 was added to the RFP.

Q27. Should 24-hour response be 1 working day response in Task Order 0001 paragraph 11?

A. Response time will be changed to 1 working day in the final RFP.

Q28. What are the tasks to be transitioned in the transition plan in Task Order 0001, Para 12.3?

A. The tasks that are in process during the 90-day transition period.

Q28. Recommend single line spacing for tables, charts, graphics and figures

A. Line spacing will be defined as 1.5 in L2.1.4 to be consistent with all other text elements in the proposal.

Q29. Section L.2.1.9 (v) specifies that each volume of the electronic proposal shall be in its own subdirectory on the CD-ROM labeled Volume 1 – 4. Section L.9.1.1 specifies that cost information shall not be included elsewhere in the proposal. Is the offeror to submit 1 CD with subdirectories for Volume I, II, and III and a separate CD for Volume IV Cost/Price? Or is the offeror to submit separate CDs for each volume?

A. RFP wording will be clarified to specify one CD for Volumes I to III and a separate

CD for Vol IV.

Q30. What constitutes "evidence" of personnel clearances in paragraph L6.2.9?

A. Paragraph L6.2.9 and this requirement will be deleted from the final RFP.

Q31. Section L7.3 identifies “A concise narrative of the volume” as part of the Mission

Capability volume. From a volume organization standpoint, how is this requirement distinct from the narratives that will be written for the four subfactors?

A. The requirement for the "concise narrative of the volume" will be deleted from the final RFP.

Q32. Section L7.3.1.1.1 requires that offerors address the following: “Develop operational representative test scenarios to evaluate F-35 capabilities and determine effectiveness, suitability, and mission capability.” However, Section M3.2.3.1 does not include this as an evaluation criterion. Should this requirement be added to the evaluation criteria in Section M3.2.3.1?

A. The section L7.3.1.1.1 requirement will be added as an evaluation criterion in Section

M of the final RFP.

Q33. What is meant by evidence of commitment in paragraph L7.3.3.6.vii?

A. Offeror shall provide qualificiations of personnel deemed critical by the offeror and how offeror plans to fill these positions (DO NOT SUBMIT NAMES). If personnel to fill a critical position are either not currently employed by the offeror or have not yet committed to employment, submit the qualifications from which the offeror will recruit.

Q34. L9.2.8.1.4 directs offerors to “Include a separate Cost Element for any transition costs.”

Request that the Government remove the requirement to propose transition cost, as this will give the incumbent an unfair cost advantage. Would the Government consider providing transition dollar amounts, for proposal purposes only, to ensure fair cost evaluation among competitors?

A. The requirement for transition costs as a separate line item is removed in the final

RFP. Transition costs are embedded in the cost to perform the task order.

Q35. L9.2.8.1.6 directs offerors to “Ensure that all direct labor rates and indirect expense rates and estimating factors used in the proposal have been submitted for review by the cognizant

Defense Contract Audit Agency prior to cost proposal submission.” DCAA will not review cost proposals without being requested to do so by the Government. The offeror assumes it will be permissible to provide DCAA with a copy of the cost proposal at the time of submittal in case such a review is requested. Is this assumption correct?

A. Yes.

Q36. L9.2.8.1.7 states, “If an Offeror’s business operations cross over the stated period of performance, 2 or more cost element breakdowns for each segments of time in a given fiscal year will be required.” Request that the Government remove this requirement, as it will be administratively burdensome for the offerors and the evaluators. Any proration of offeror fiscal year rates to the contract period of performance can be illustrated and explained in the cost narrative.

A. AFOTEC is not requiring companies to prorate their direct and indirect rates. If your

FY rates do not align with the Government period of performance, then you are to divide your costs by the Government period of performance. For example, your FY rates are from Jan - Dec.

Our period of performance is Apr 2011 through May 2012. You would divide your proposal by applying your FY11 rates for your proposed costs from Apr 2011 to Dec 2011 and your FY12 rates for your proposed costs from Jan 2012 through May 2012.

Q37. L9.2.8.1.7.4 states, “Describe the basis for the rates and factors and identify by date the

Offeror’s Forward Pricing Rate Agreement if applicable (FPRA), Forward Pricing Rate Proposal if applicable (FPRP) (audited or unaudited), or other basis. If no rate proposal has been submitted within the last year, provide a cost-element breakdown of each pool and base.” The offeror assumes DCAA approval of provisional billing rates is an acceptable basis for rates and factors. Is this assumption correct?

A. No, provisional billing rates are not used for forward pricing estimates.

Q38. M3.3.3.2, Cost/Price Bullet states that relevancy will be determined in part by “Cost

Reimbursable and ID/IQ contract experience.” Recommend you modify “ID/IQ” to “Task

Order”

A. "ID/IQ" will be Changed to "ID/IQ Task Order" experience in the final RFP.

Q39. Will resumes for Key Persons be considered under the same page count rule as Position

Descriptions (PDs)?

A. Task Orders 0001 and 002 do not identify any key personnel, therefore, resumes are not required in the response to the RFP.

Q40. Would there be any preference given to a small business led team?

A. No. This acquisition is being conducted under full and open competition.

Q41. Is it planned to release task orders based on required skill(s) across all/multiple programs or will each task order for a required skill(s) be for an individual program?

A. Task Order 0001 is for the individual F-35 program. It is unknown if future task orders will be for individual programs and/or across multiple programs.

Q42. Is the flow of information between Det 1 and Det 6 classified, unclassified, or both? What are the technical requirements for latency, through-put, storage, positions, etc?

A. PWS Paragraph 3.1.5 has been modified. Det 1 and Det 6 cooperate closely on the F-

35 and F-22 programs and open communications between test teams is required at both the classified and unclassified levels. There are no technical requirements. The intent is to utilize existing AFOTEC systems to openly communicate between test teams.

Q43. Is an operational evaluation of the ALIS system part of what you are asking for in this solicitation? Is that a specific task? Will it be considered a separate task for individual evaluation?

A. ALIS will be evaluated as part of the operational test and evaluation along with the other data collected during the test. ALIS testing will be part of the OT&E of the overall F-35 weapons system, not a separate task.

Q44. VSIMs, can you elaborate on it what it’s real status is, who developed it, etc. Will it be used more as a tool not as a requirement?

A. Currently, VSim is in development by Lockheed Martin. VSim will be used as a tool for

OT&E. The Fighter OTES contract will support requirements definition for the VSim and review of Lockheed Martin Validation and Verification activities leading up to AFOTEC

Accreditation of the VSim for OT&E.

Q45. Will the recent DOD AT&O guidance from Dr. Carter have any effect on this acquisition?

It could change the contract from 5 to 3 years, but we have not received any direction to change this acquisition.

Q46. So it may influence the length of the contract but would not influence your decision to go single award?

A. Yes. This acquisition will be a single award.

Q47. Can you elaborate on the response to question 25 on the OCI Clause H-260? Is developmental test & evaluation support along with operational test & evaluation considered an organizational conflict of interest? Would you be able to mitigate this with perhaps a firewall? Is there a blanket prohibition against firewalls?

A. If there is a particular situation you will need to submit a mitigation plan. The situation would need to be reviewed before a determination could be made whether the mitigation plan is acceptable.

Q48. The wording on the OCI clause refers to AFMC, is this wording similar to the current clauses?

A. Fighter OTES used an OCI clause which has been implemented as an AFFARS clause 5352.209-9000, Organizational Conflicts Of Interest in Section I of the RFP.

Q49. Have you established the Bidder’s Library?

A. Yes, it is in the CD. Remember that this is protected information.

Q50. The Bidder’s Library and the proposal have all unclassified information. Wouldn’t it level the playing field with the incumbent if we had access to some of the classified information?

A. The information available on the bidder’s library is sufficient to provide a competitive proposal. Refer to Q17. Classified proposals are not allowed.

Q51. Is that response firm?

a. yes

Q52. Please clarify the following: It was noted that the cross-reference matrix, Page 200-201 of the Draft RFP, requires a cross reference between the factors and the ID/IQ PWS. This is viable for Factors 1 & 2 (including subfactors). However, the RFP instructions requires Cost/Price be submitted for Task Orders 0001 and 0002 only, but not at the ID/IQ contract-level (i.e. reference

Section L9.2.8.1). Possible RFP changes may be to revise the heading (e.g., PWS/Task Order as appropriate), or perhaps revise the cross-reference instruction.

A. Section L has been modified and lists the cross reference matrix as optional.