DRAFT OTES Responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 54 KB Posted
- Attached to
- OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION SERVICES (OTES) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA7046-11-R-0003
About this file
Draft RFP Responses to Questions and Comments
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION SERVICES (OTES) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
PWS
| PWS | ||
| Reference | Question/Comment/Rationale | Resolution |
| PWS Table 1.1, Core Competencies Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear expertise (detection, survivability, recovery) | What aspects of CBRN (detection, survivability, recovery) is AFOTEC responsible for testing and evaluating? What specific CBRN (detection, survivability, recovery) capability is required from service providers? Recommend defining AFOTEC's specific responsibilities for testing and evaluating proposed systems and programs within the CBRN (detection, survivability, recovery) core competency. Specificity will provide contractors with the necessary information to determine the engineering, technical and analytical capabilities required to provide services in support of AFOTEC. | AFOTEC is responsible for testing any aspect of CBRN that the system under test requires to be procured as an USAF system. It is always system specific. The offerors need to show expertise across the CBRN spectrum (detection, survivability, and recovery). We are not able to predict which immediate expertise is required at any given time (program specific). The CBRN systems are tested the same way as any other system procured by the USAF/DOD. A test design, test plan, test execution and a report are all required. These systems will be tested at their operational locations or as an example, Dugway Proving Grounds at the Utah Test and Training Range. |
| PWS Table 1.1, Core Competencies Agile Combat Support expertise (life support, force protection, explosive ordinance disposal, logistics support) | What specific aspects of explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) and force protection proposed systems and programs is AFOTEC responsible for testing and evaluating? What EOD and force protection capabilities are required from service providers? Recommend defining AFOTEC's specific responsibilities for testing and evaluating of proposed systems and programs within the Agile Combat Support core competency. Specificity will provide contractors with the necessary information to determine the engineering, technical and analytical capabilities required to provide services to support AFOTEC. | AFOTEC does not perform EOD. That is the responsibility of the EOD personnel at the ranges. We test programs, such as the remote firing device, which assists the EOD personnel to perform its mission. We also perform normal operational tests on systems that either assist or perform the force protection mission. AFOTEC does not perform the force protection mission. The Agile Combat Systems are tested the same way as any other system procured by the USAF/DOD. A test design, test plan, test execution and a report are all required. These systems will be tested at their operational locations or as an example, range C3 at Eglin AFB, FL. |
| PWS Table 1.1, Core Competencies Munitions and munitions systems expertise (air-to-air, air-to-ground, stand-off weapons, ordinance, nuclear) | What aspects of Nuclear munitions and munitions systems is AFOTEC responsible for testing and evaluating? What specific capabilities in nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons delivery systems are required from service providers? The nuclear enterprise is expansive. Recommend defining AFOTEC's specific responsibilities for testing and evaluating proposed systems and programs within the nuclear enterprise. Specificity will provide contractors with the necessary information to determine the engineering, technical and analytical capabilities required to provide services to support AFOTEC. | AFOTEC does not test the actual nuclear warhead. AFOTEC would test the delivery system, for example the B-61 program. Modifications are being made to the delivery system, and AFOTEC would conduct an operational test to include the aircraft, weapon release, targeting, accuracy, etc. but not the warhead itself (the physics package). |
| PWS Table 1.1 Core Competencies, "Nuclear survivability expertise (electro magnetic compatibility, electromagnetic interference, high altitude electromagnetic pulse" | Please clarify and what is expected with Nuclear Survivability? Is Nuclear Surety expected as part of this contract Nuclear Survivability is a broad area. If appropriate, please describe the specific program(s) a contractor might be expected to support. | Nuclear surety is not part of this contract. An example system AFOTEC would test is be the Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite system, and its capability to conduct the its communication mission in a nuclear environment (to communicate through nuclear scintillation). Another example is the Family of Beyond Line of Sight Terminals (FAB-T), which has the same basic mission. |
| PWS Table 1.1, Core Competencies, "Munitions and munitions systems expertise (air-to-air, air-to-ground, stand-off weapons, ordinance, nuclear" | Can AFOTEC further define expected munitions a contractor can expect to support? What nuclear expertise is expected: logistics, surety, maintenance, survivability, employment? This is a very broad listing. If appropriate, please describe specific weapon(s) a contractor might be expected to support. The contractor can then focus the appropriate support resources. | Example weapons tested by AFOTEC have included: AIM-9/X, Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), AIM-120X, Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Joint Air to Surface Standoff Munition (JASSM), Laser-JDAM, Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW), Miniature Air Launched Decoy (MALD), and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB). The Department of Energy provides the nuclear surety expertise. Expected expertise for OT&E includes: logistics, maintenance, employment, etc. This is standard testing required of all programs. |
| PWS Table 2.1 Applicable Documents | Will AFOTEC expect the contractor to have a working knowledge of MAJCOM T&E Instructions? MAJCOM Instructions are not listed. Example: AFSPCI 99-103 covers the T&E of Space Systems, which is the purview of Detachment 4. | AFOTEC does not require the offeror to possess a working knowledge of MAJCOM instructions. |
| PWS 3.1.2, The contractor…shall be required to submit corrective management plans as necessary | Since 3.1.1 addresses requirements for Quality Control Plan and associated management approach and procedures, is the contractor expected to revise the Quality Control Plan for each Task Order? It would seem appropriate to change the wording "to submit corrective or mitigating management approach, procedures, or processes as appropriate with the task order. | No, the Quality Control Plan is at the contract level and should cover any quality issues at the Task Order level. IAW paragraph 8.0 of the QASP, the offeror should update the plan as changes occur and submit for review and acceptance by CO. |
| PWS 3.1.3, Be responsible for overall responsiveness..cooperative behavior | The contractor cannot reasonably be able to control responsiveness or behavior of those not in the contractor or subcontractor workforce. Incorporate the word, contractor, in between "for" and "overall." | Will add "contractor" between "for" and "overall" in the first sentence. |
| PWS, 3.2, Test Capabilities | Enumerated items progress from 3.2.7 to 3.2.9 without a 3.2.8 entry. Please confirm whether or not this is the Government's intent. |
It appears that either Para 3.2.8 is missing or Para 3.2.9 is mis-numbered. Please clarify.
| Is Section 3.2.9 actually 3.2.8 or has Section 3.2.8 been inadvertently omitted? | Paragraphs will be renumbered in final RFP | ||
| PWS 3.2.3, Develop accreditation packages | Does this assume only M&S VV&A accreditation packages? Recommend clarifying if Accreditation Packages are strictly M&S related, or related across a broader definition. | VV&A would only be required on M&S products. | |
| PWS 3.3.8 Analyze and submit test methodologies; test scenario descriptions; … | Consider changing test scenario description to test scenario description and scripts. | No, already covered by Detailed Test Procedures in Para 3.3.6. | |
| PWS 3.4.1 Provide field operations services, such as deployment and redeployment; … | The remaining sentence appears to focus on deployment activities. What about specific redeployment activities? Address specific redeployment activities such as test site restoration, configuration control of test resources to baseline configuration. | The Contractor will be responsible for : Deployment involve those actions necessary to get a test team and its equipment to an area(s) to conduct the testing activities. Redeployment would involve those actions required to return the test team and their equipment to their original location(s). Both activities can involve: personnel, instrumentation, computers, local area network setup, lodging, transportation, etc. | |
| Ref PWS Para 4.0 | Surveillance Matrix. Can the government please confirm that the performance thresholds are accurate; specifically the performance thresholds for items 2 and 3 appear to be identical | The surveillance matrix and QASP will be updated with the final RFP. | |
| Ref PWS Para 5.1 | Government Furnished Property. Can the government please clarify that the same level of government property detail is required in the task orders and the PWS. | Each Task Order will indicate what GFP/Base Support will be provided for that particular task order. It is not always the same for each task order. | |
| PWS 5.1 Government Furnished Equipment | Can the Government provide specific examples of GFEs? For example, will the Government provide cell phones or radios when testing is deployed to remote locations: Will the Government provide off-road vehicles for access to/from remote test activities when required? | Government Furnished Property (GFP)/Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) will be specified in each task order in PWS Para 5.1. Access to and from remote test activities will be provided by the Government. | |
| PWS, 5.1, d, Custodial Service | Please detail the "Custodial Service" requirements. | Reworded to read: The contractor will receive the same level of support from the host wing as would government employees. This may include keeping their work area neat and clean and emptying personal trash bin in a government designated trash and recycling receptacles. | |
| PWS, 5.1.1, Property Control Procedures | Please clarify whether 2nd sentence should read "will" vice "will not" in regards to signing over equipment. | Computers, etc. will not be turned over to contractor as GFP (as defined in FAR Part 45) and tracked in the contractor's property control system. Hand receipts will be issued. | |
| 5.3.1 Phase-in is not required if the successor contractor subcontracts to an ETS incumbent. | Does this statement also pertain to ETS subcontractor companies (i.e., If a successor contractor subcontracts to an ETS incumbent subcontractor, is Phase-in required of the successor contractor)? If Phase-in is not required for some offerors and Phase-in cost / price is thus not proposed for some offerors, please clarify how all offerors' task order costs / prices will be evaluated. If Phase-in is not required of all offerors, please explain how all offerors' proposals will be evaluated fairly in accordance with Section M, 3.2.1.b.4. | If the successful offeror hires an incumbent ETS contractor (prime or sub) , then Phase-in is not required. PWS 5.3.1, L7.2.2.5 and M3.2.1.b(4) will be changed to reflect this info. Phase-in costs are not segregated or are not "in addition to" the costs to perform the work, therefore, all offerors are treated equally. For M3.2.1.b(4) if transition is not required, then the offeror will be evaluated as acceptable for this paragraph. | |
| Reference Applicable Documents, PWS "Applicable Documents" Section 2.0 and PWS Para 3.4.6 | The new AFOTECMAN dated August 2010 appears to supersede the older version dated May 2007 and appears to replace the OT&E Guide. The current OTES procurement web site has links to both the 2007 AFOTECMAN and the OT&E Guide. Please clarify if the August 2010 release of AFOTECMAN does supersede the OT&E Guide and the May 2007 AFOTECMAN 99-101 as posted on the current OTES procurement web site. | The reference to the AFOTEC OT&E Guide is removed. | |
| PWS table of contents, overall; PWS table of contents, 5.1.1; PWS table of contents, 7.0 | Fix the numbering… it starts over after 3.1.1; Delete the blue line before 5.1.1; Change the comma to a period after misc | Numbering will be fixed in the final RFP and the blue line will be removed. | |
| PWS Section 1.1, 2nd para. | Paragraph mixes systems and skills together. Suggest break them apart and have two paragraphs. | Reworded to read: AFOTEC testing activities evaluate the capabilities (operational effectiveness, operational suitability, and mission capability) of air, space and cyberspace systems, such as: Agile Combat Support; aircraft and aircraft systems; Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN); Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR); cyberspace systems; Global Positioning System; munitions and munitions systems; support and ground equipment; and augmentations of these systems by new technologies in the future. | |
| AFOTEC testing activities involve skills and knowledge in the following areas: aeronautical/aerospace, civil, electrical, metallurgical, mechanical, chemical, computer/communications, systems engineering; Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN); Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR); cyberspace systems; defense acquisition process and test and evaluation process; directed energy, high power microwave, advanced technologies; electronic warfare, radar, infra-red, electro-optical, radio frequency engineering; human factors engineering; information assurance and intelligence test and evaluation; logistics planning and analysis; modeling and simulation applications; munitions and munitions systems; nuclear survivability; operations analysis; space and terrestrial weather; technology test support; test and evaluation resources. | |||
| PWS, Section 1.1, operational effectiveness bullet | Suggest delete the word 'initial' in front of nuclear weapons effects. | Deleted | |
| PWS, Section 3.1.1, last bullet | Suggest reword from 'discovered by your quality control processes' to 'discovered by quality control processes'. Reasoning: "your" doesn't match the tone of the rest of the section. | Corrected. | |
| PWS, Section 3.2.5, last sentence | "Provide Information Technology (IT) Special Access Program (SAP) test support." This looks out of place… is this the only SAP support needed? | Reworded PWS paragraph 3.2.5 and created 3.2.6 for IT test support. Renumbered remaining paragraphs. | |
| PWS, Section 3.2.6 | Suggest add "IT&E" to get "…and tools for IT&E and OT&E." | Added see 3.2.7 | |
| PWS Section 3.3, first paragraph | Add a period at the end of the paragraph. | Added | |
| PWS Section 3.4, title | Change from 'Text' to 'Test'. | Corrected. | |
| PWS Section 3.5.4 | Add 'natural' to the list of environments. | Added | |
| PWS Table 4.1 Surveillance Matrix, Item 3, performance threshold, last sentence | Add the word 'officer' to get 'action officer'. | PWS Table 4.1, Surveillance Matrix, Item 3, performance threshold, last sentence has been rewritten. | |
| PWS Table 4.1 Surveillance Matrix, Item 4, performance threshold, first sentence | Text says no failures are acceptable. Is this really reasonable? | No security failures are allowable. For this particular item, the contractor cannot receive a higher performance rating than satisfactory. | |
| PWS section 6.1.2 | Add the word 'requests' to get 'visit requests', should be done twice - in the first and second sentences. | Not changed. | |
| PWS 6.2.2, Last sentence | Consider changing the sentence: 'Contractor employees shall be briefed by their immediate supervisor upon their initial on-base assignment.' This implies a government supervisor, which sounds like personal services. | Last line changed to read "… immediate company supervisor …" | |
| PWS 7.0 | Change the comma to a period after 'misc' or spell it out. | Corrected. |
TO 0001
| TO 0001 - Nuclear Weapons, Directed Energy Weapons, and Natural Space Environment Survivability Services | |||
| Reference | Question/Comment/Rationale | Resolution | |
| Ref Task Order 0001, Para 3.0 | This paragraph requires the contractor to consider the potential system required capabilities for the list of threats provided. This list is more appropriately part of Section 3.2, Test Capabilities, where the actual or simulated threats would be analyzed to determine where the capabilities exist, shortfalls, and potential solutions to any shortfalls or in Section 3.3, Test Planning where the threats would be incorporated into the test plan as test requirements. None of the other Task Order PWSs has this type of information listed. Would the government consider moving this information to a more appropriate section of the PWS? | Major editorial changes have been made Task Order 0001. Offerors are advised to review the revised Task Order 0001 as a complete document before submitting a proposal. NOTE: The paragraph numbering of this task order is different from Task Orders 0002 and 0003 due the unique kind of work it requires. | x |
| TO#1 3.2.1 Perform analysis of test capabilities during the Early Involvement Phase such as : identify mission; identify mission critical functions and equipment; … | Clarify what are to be identified because it appears that these items have already been accomplished in the requirements phase and captured in documents such as the CONOP and ORD. Please clarify what specific mission components need to be identified. | These are threats that might have an impact on the mission | |
| TO #1 3.2.2 Determine the SPO's plans for hardness maintenance… | As contractor, we can perform analysis and have no authority to determine the SPO's plans. Please clarify. | "Determine" means contractor finds out what are the SPOs plans. | x |
| TO #1 3.2.1 Determine the survivability levels required to ensure user mission accomplishment… | As contractor, we can perform analysis and provide recommendations. Please clarify what is expected in "determining the survivability levels." | "Determine" means contractor will decide what the survivability levels should be. | x |
| TO #1 3.2.2 Identify deficiencies in DT plans and data requirements | Through the test process, the contractor can help identify and characterize deficiencies that are then returned to SPO and developmental contractor corrective action. Please clarify what is meant by "identify deficiencies." | Deficiencies in the System under Test discovered during testing | |
| TO #1 3.2.2 Work to eliminate deficiencies | As a contractor, we can perform analysis and provide recommendations. Please clarify what is expected in "work to eliminate deficiencies." | AFOTEC, with contractor support, performs analysis and provides recommendations to the program office and user. | x |
| Task Order 0001, Section 3.3 | At the end of the 3.3 Test Planning section title, there are open parentheses and no references like there are for other sections [e.g., 3.2 Test Capability (A003 & A016)]. Is there a reference for 3.3 Test Planning? | The open parentheses in paragraph 3.3 is a grammatical error and corrected. There is no reference to paragraph 3.3 Test Planning. | |
| TO#1 3.4.1 Witness all relevant combined DT/OT tests. Investigate problems found with SUT, and develop work around to allow mission accomplishments. | Please clarify DT (SPO and developer responsibilities) versus OT responsibilities. | See DOD 5000.2R, DAG and AFI 99-103 | x |
| TO #1: 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.5, 3.5.2, and 3.5.3 | What is the significance of these missing paragraphs? | No Significance. Major editorial changes have been made Task Order 0001. Offerors are advised to review the revised Task Order 0001 as a complete document before submitting a proposal. NOTE: The paragraph numbering of this task order is different from Task Orders 0002 and 0003 due the unique kind of work it requires. | |
| Ref TO 1 Para 3.6. | It appears CDRL AO17 may be missing in accordance with the CDRL summary. | The paragraph numbering of this task order has changed. CDRL is shown in paragraphs 3.3.3.8 and 5.4.4 in the PWS | |
| Ref TO 1 Para 5.1 | Can the government please clarify the potential requirements of facilities, equipment, or furniture required by the contractor to support this TO. | Offeror is expected to work at the contractor's facilities | |
| Ref TO 1 Para 6.1. | It appears that Para 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 may be missing. Please clarify. | added 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3 |
| TO 1 Request clarification on Task Order 1 scope. | Confirm the Government's requirement is primarily Space Systems and their segments (Launch, Space, Control, User) vice other systems (ex: tactical aircraft). | added strategic aircraft to paragraph 1.1 Launch segment is not usually subject to this type of survivability requirements | |
| x |
TO 0002
| TO 0002 - Det 5 Bombers | |||
| Reference | Question/Comment/Rationale | Resolution | |
| Table 1.0 of TO 0002. | Request Government provide meaningful update | Table updated | x |
| 2.1 and 2.2 of TO 0002 | Request Government provide program information called out in 2.1 and 2.2 of TO 0002. AFOTEC Involvement documentation also required. Are B-1 FIDL and B-2 EHF only active programs (per 7.6.x)? | Individual program documents will not be provided. No, B-1 FIDL and B-2 EHF are not the only active programs, see updated tables. Offerors should still be able to provide a sufficient proposal for evaluation without |
the program documents.
| x | ||||
| Ref TO 2 and TO 3, Para 3.2.7 | This para states that the contractor should “acquire” state of the art instrumentation, recent breakthroughs…” Acquiring capability is not part of the overall PWS 3.2.7. Please clarify whether or not this capability will be funded, or will this be provided by AFOTEC or an external source. | "Acquire" is removed. | x | |
| Performance requirement 3.3.10 The second paragraph has two sentences that are repetitive. | Please clarify whether this second paragraph is an intended element of 3.3.10. | Paragraph 3.3.10 only contains one paragraph reads appropriately. | x | |
| TO 2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.3 | Both paragraphs have identical entries regarding "Provide field equipment support." Please confirm whether or not this is the Government's intent. | Revised paragraph 3.4.3 to remove the field equipment support. | x | |
| TO #2 3.5.1 | Please clarify on the word, compile? Does the Government mean the process of collecting and processing post-test data? | Yes. Compile refers to the collection from various sources of test data and includes any pre-processing required. | x | |
| TO #2 3.5.2 | Please clarify on the word, evaluate? Does the Government mean data analysis met the MOEs and MOSs for this program? | Yes. Evaluate refers to the interpretation of the results of the data analysis and whether or not system under test criteria were met. | x | |
| Ref TO 2 Paragraph 5.4. | The first sentence in the second paragraph that begins, “AFOTEC Det 5/DMS…” does not appear to be complete and the requirement to be accomplished is not clearly stated. Please clarify | Reworded second paragraph of 5.4 to read: | ||
| "Delivery shall be made by electronic means compatible with AFOTEC software. All reports shall meet Det 5 standards for structure and content. The contractor shall provide the following reports to:" | x | |||
| Ref TO 2 Paragraph 6.1.2. | This element in the overall PWS addresses processing classified visits via the Joint Personnel Adjudication System and the TO PWS addresses the access to and use of COMSEC materials with visit requests mentioned last and no reference to JPAS. Please clarify. | Added statement from PWS 6.1.2 to TO 0002 6.1.2 | x |
TO 0003
| TO 0003 - JSPDS | |||
| Reference | Question/Comment/Rationale | Resolution | |
| TO 3, 2.0, 2.3, and 2.4 | 2.3 references AFOTECMAN 99-101 and 2.4 references DoDD 5134.08, both of which are already included in PWS, Section 2.0. Please confirm whether or not this is the Government's intent. | Removed 2.3 & 2.4 from the TO. | x |
| Ref TO 3, PWS, Section 3.3.1, 3rd sentence | Should the statement "Provide overall assessment planning services to AFOTEC for MOT&E" refer only to AFOTEC CBRN test programs? Please clarify. | Change is not required as this Task Order is specific for JSPDS. | x |
| TO 3, 3.3.10, last sentence | Last sentence is a direct repeat of preceding sentence. Please confirm whether or not this is the Government's intent. | Deleted duplicated line. | x |
| Ref TO 3 Paragraph 3.3.10 | Can the government please clarify which of the two PWS performance requirements stated is correct? The first 3+ lines of this paragraph are for site surveys and are correctly stated; however, site surveys are also addressed in TO 3 3.4.2. The second PWS performance requirement, beginning in line 4 (Develop input requirements…) is also correctly stated, but the second performance requirement is more correctly part of the overall PWS 3.3.6. | This is included in both Test Planning and Test Execution in case changes occur between planning and execution. | x |
| TO #3 3.3.9 and 3.3.12; 3.4.5; 3.5.1-3; 3.5.5; 6.2.6 | What is the significance of these missing paragraphs? | No significance. If a paragraph is not cited in the Task order then it is not a requirement. We use the same task numbering from the PWS to the TO. | x |
| 3.4.4 | Request clarification on 3.4.4; will contractor be required to install comm and data link equipment? | No comms and datalink equipment would be setup by contractor. The service will be provided by base support. Some standalone sensor setups are standalone performed by the test team | x |
| TO #3 3.5.1 | Please clarify on the word, compile? Does the Government mean the process of collecting and processing post-test data? | Yes. Compile refers to the collection from various sources of test data and includes any pre-processing required. | x |
| 5.4.14 | Request clarification on TC3; will contractor be required to provide spares, etc. per 5.4.14? | No requirement for spares | x |
| 5.4.10 and 5.4.12 | Request clarification on 5.4.10 and 5.4.12; are these only applicable to RMA models? | No section 5.4.10 or 5.4.12 in the TO so not required | x |
| TO #3 5.1 | Request clarification as to whether the office space mentioned in 5.1 of the TO be one location (i.e. South Base) or spread out (i.e. include Det building) for scoping purposes. | All CBRN will be done at Det 2 and test locations. | x |
| Section 5.1 Government Furnished Property - Base Support | The list of Government Furnished Property (GFP) - Base Support and Government Furnished Information (GFI) differs among the task orders. Is the offeror to assume that other direct costs of those items incurred in performance of the task order and not provided by the Government will be reimbursable under Item No. 0002? | Contractor will not need to purchase any equipment. All equipment will be GFE. No, do not assume that the contractor will be reimbursed for this items. Purchase of supply type items is not authorized under this contract. | x |
| TO #3 2.0 Applicable Documents. | Request the Government provide the JSPDS ORD and TEMP. | Proposal comments that rely on a TEMP or ORD shall be disregarded. Evaluations shall be based on the contractors demonstrated ability to perform OT&E support. | x |
| TO #3 | Is JSPDS an umbrella program that will test future components using the same/similar legacy program documentation as those created for RSDL? If so, request the Government provide a forecast for future test requirements for Test Resource Planning purposes. | JSPDS is not an umbrella program. No future work anticipated . | x |
| TO #3 | Is it AFOTEC’s intention to expand their role in ACAT III programs like JSPDS? Or to continue at recent history levels? | AFOTEC conducts ACAT III by exception. | x |
| TO #3 | Request Government provide volume of SAP work, to include things such as number of expected billets for scoping purposes. | TO 1 and 3 does not require SAP. TO 2 will require some SAP. We provided a history of FTEs performing each TO. | x |
| TO #3 | Request Government provide information on current/projected military/government staffing so contractor can more accurately assess scope of efforts being augmented with contractor support. | The government estimates that the number of personnel required for this task would be no more than 2. | x |
DD254
| DD 254 | ||
| Reference | Question/Comment/Rationale | Resolution |
| 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 |
| The DD254 states that safeguarding is not authorized, yet it states that the contractor will "Receive and Generate Classified Material" (11c) and may also require the use of classified computer systems. Confirm all SIPRNET access will be at the customer sites. | Safeguarding applies to the facility clearance. Storing and receiving classified is not authorized at the contractor's facility(is). All SIPRNET access shall be at the customer's sites. Receiving and generating classified materials shall only be accomplished at the customer's sites or other authorized government facilities. | |
| The DD254 indicates that there are attachments, request the Government provide those attachments in the final RFP or remove the reference to attachments. | Yes, attachments and Section C shall be posted within the final RFP and includes the umbrella PWS, the DD254, and the continuation pages for the DD254. | |
| L 7.2.2.2 (e) Refers to DD Form 254, Section C for security requirements. | There does not appear to be an applicable Section C. Can you please clarify which portion of the form this refers to? | Section C shall be posted within the final RFP and includes the umbrella PWS, the DD254, and the continuation pages for the DD254. |
| What exactly does the contractor need to fill out in the DD254? | AFOTEC will complete the DD254 for the Prime Awardee however it is the responsibility of the Prime to complete a AFOTEC approved DD254 on its Subcontractors. |
General
| General | |||
| Reference | Question/Comment/Rationale | Resolution | |
| RFP -- General | Is it possible to add page numbers to the final RFP? | The contracting writing system may not number the pages | |
| Solicitation responses | Will the Government issue the Final RFP in an MS Word format to allow offerors to complete the “fill-in-the-blank” information required by the RFP? | ||
| That the Final RFP Sections A through K and required attachment/formats be issued in MS Word or MS Excel formats to allow offerors to complete the “fill-in-the-blank” information required by the RFP. | yes, Word format can be provided for ease of clause fill-ins | ||
| 1. Section I, page 18 & Section M, Clause M1.0, p. 84 | The referenced provisions stipulate that the procurement is a 100% small business set-aside. We recommend that the Air Force awarding at least one of the procurements to SDVO SBCs. Several factors lead us to this recommendation: |
a. Executive Order 13360 establishes a goal of 3% of Federal contracting be set aside for SDVO SBCs.
b. The 2010 DoD Small Business Procurement Scorecard indicates that the SDVO SBC awards were only 1.82% or 60.7% of the mandated goal.
| c. Talented, capable and responsible SDVO SBCs can help the Air Force meet its SDVO SBC goals by having one of the OTES contracts set aside. | AFOTEC considered this a suggestion. This acquisition will remain a small business set aside. The government will not mandate who the prime uses as a subcontractor. | ||
| Procurement Schedule | Will the Government please consider publishing the OTES procurement schedule prior to final RFP release? | We will consider publishing the schedule. | |
| Schedule B, CLIN 0002 CLIN 002 and G-150 state that travel costs shall be reimbursed at cost. | Will the contractor also be able to recover G&A on travel costs ODCs? Also, will contractors be ale to recover G&A and fee on non-travel ODCs Specify in the solicitation whether or not G&A and fee may be recovered on non-travel ODCs. | Yes, G&A is included in the established ceiling and should be included in the contractor's invoice. There is no other ODC than travel. No supply items are to be acquired under this contract. Fee is only on Labor; no fee is allowed on Travel. |
G
| Section G | ||
| Reference | Question/Comment/Rationale | Resolution |
| Section G-150 this section states the "(i)nvoices (or public vouchers), supported by a statement of cost for performance under this contract, shall be submitted to the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) office. | Will this provision apply to contractors who are approved by DCAA for “direct billing?” Clarify whether this provision applies to all contractors. | If the offeror is "approved" for Direct Billing by DCAA, then provide the DCAA approval letter with the proposal. |
H
| Section H | ||
| Reference | Question/Comment/Rationale | Resolution |
| 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? | There is no missing info and the sequence is correct |
| Ref Section H-270 | Would the Government consider corporate promotion or corporate/task performance-based actions to constitute an acceptable substitution/replacement event? | The intent of this clause is to ensure the contractor notifies the government when substitutions are made and to ensure the contractor minimizes substitutions after the government has approved of the personnel. Reworded paragraph A: "...sudden illness, death, reassignment or termination of employment...." |
| Ref Section H-270 and H-100 | Since key personnel are determined at each task order level, and proposed personnel are we to submit nameless resumes and/or position descriptions for proposed personnel, how will key personnel be specifically individually identified? | H-100 and H-270 - Key personnel will be identified to the government on each individual task order, if required. |
Contractor is to propose position descriptions; do not include resumes.
RFP, Section H, H150, paragraph c Should the reference to subparagraph (e) actually be (f) and the reference to subparagraph (f) actually be (g)? Support will be specified on each task order. The reference in this para is correct.
L
| Section L | ||
| Reference | Question/Comment/Rationale | Resolution |
| Solicitation Section L 2.1.1 Requires that “Text lines to include all tables, charts, graphs, and figures, shall have 1.5-line spacing.” | Recommend that the Government reconsider this requirement and changes it to “single line spacing.” | For legibility and standardization, the government is defining font pitch and spacing. |
| L, 2.1.4 | L2.1.4 states that "Graphics and Figures shall be no smaller than Times New Roman 10 point." Is Times New Roman mandatory or can we use an alternative font (Arial) that is the same/larger than the Times New Roman 10 point? | For legibility and standardization, the government is defining font pitch and spacing. Times New Roman 12 point for Text and Times New Roman 10 point for Graphics and Figures. |
| 2.1.4 Tables, Charts, Graphs, and Figures For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than Times New Roman 10 point. | Is text within tables, charts, graphs and figures allowed to be single-spaced, as opposed to the 1.5 spacing for regular text within the volumes? (Note: for example, the PPIS format provided in DRFP uses single spacing within each block/cell.) | For legibility and standardization, the government is defining font pitch and spacing. |
| L2.1.1 - L2.1.4 Text, Page Limitations, Page Size, Tables, Charts, Graphs and Figures | Please advise if the same proposal formatting instruction in L2.1.1 - 2.1.4, such as text font, point size, line spacing, and margins, are applicable to the Excel workbook spreadsheets in the Cost / Price volume. | For legibility and standardization, the government is defining font pitch and spacing. |
| Ref 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? | Do not add elements to the Cross Reference Matrix as the Government will not evaluate anything added to the matrix. |
| RFP, Attachment L3, Cover Letter, paragraph 3, 2nd line | Should the reference to "date" actually be "data"? | Concur. Change to Data |
| RFP, Attachment L3, Cover Letter | Recommend adding: Mailing the questionnaire(s) is an acceptable alternative method of transmission. If mailing, the outside envelope must be marked with: “NOTE: TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY”. | Concur |
| RFP, Section L, L4.0, 2nd paragraph | Should the "L.1.1.2" reference actually be "L.1.1.1.2"? | Concur |
| RFP, Attachment L4, Past Performance Questionnaire | Recommend adding to end of Questionnaire, in conjunction with given address: Mailing the questionnaire(s) is an acceptable alternative method of transmission. If mailing, the outside envelope must be marked with: “NOTE: TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY”. | Concur |
| L 6.2.1 and L.6.2.16 The offeror shall provide the company / division's street address, county and facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code; size of business (large or small); and labor surplus area designation. | These requirements appear to be duplicative. Please clarify if the Government would like to have the requirement addressed in each section. | Concur. L.6.2.1 is revised and L6.2.16 is removed. |
| L 6.2.17 Submit copies of your latest available financial statement covering the organization(s) which will perform the contract. (Bolded for emphasis). | Please clarify that this requirement pertains to organizations within the Prime contractor's company rather than other teammate organizations. | Concur. L6.2.17 is now L6.2.14 and is reworded to read: "Submit copies of the prime contractor's latest available financial statement covering ….". |
| Ref L 7.2.1 (2). | Life Cycle Chart Attachment. Can the government please clarify where this document is located? | The chart is in the "Applicable Documents" on FedBizOpps |
| Ref L 7.2.2.1 (e) | Quality Control Plan (QCP). Can the government please confirm that the entire quality control plan is either to be included as part of the technical proposal or provided as a brief summary with the QCP submitted after award? | Reference L7.2.2.1 and PWS 3.1.1. The entire QCP is required to be submitted with the technical proposal. |
| Ref L 7.2.2.1 (e) | Please confirm whether or not the QCP is part of the formal page count if included in the Technical section | Concur. The QCP is part of the technical proposal and is included in the 120 page count for the technical proposal. |
| Ref L 7.2.2.1 c). | Position descriptions for all direct personnel supporting technical requirements. Can the government please clarify whether or not this clause applies to all personnel or only management personnel who are performing direct work on the contract? | Reworded to read: "...for all direct technical personnel performing …" |
| Ref L 7.2.2.2.2 c) | Initial Staffing. Can the government please confirm that the manpower requirements are not required for the three task orders? Rationale: We do not yet know the actual scope of any additional work to be required under the OTES contract. | The manpower requirements are for the three Task Orders and not at the contract level. |
| Ref L 7.2.2.2.2 e). | Can the government please confirm that the requirement of presenting security clearance information for “all personnel” are those personnel expected to perform on the three task orders only. | Clarification: All contractor personnel performing technical work on any AFOTEC task order are required to possess a security clearance. |
Contract, finance, administration, etc. personnel who do not work on task order directly may not require a security clearance.
| Section 7.2.2.4 C) Staffing surge capabilities…during workload downtime. | Please clarify how long is considered workload downtime? Weeks? Months? | The government will not define workload downtime. Offeror is responsible to manage personnel in a cost effective method to maintain expertise to meet AFOTEC needs. The purpose of this requirement is for the offeror to describe how they will retain the expertise in a cost effective method needed for the task order if there are downtimes . |
| L 9.2.5 TAB 5 – FINANCIAL CAPABILITY The requirement to provide all of the information required by DFARS 232.072, DFARS 232.072-2(b) and 232.072-3 is clearly excessive for the task ordering contracts contemplated by the RFP. | Q. Will the Government consider modifying this requirement by allowing Offerors to provide sufficient information to meet the requirements of FAR 9.104-1? That the solicitation be modified to delete the reference to the DFAR sections | Para L9.2.5 FINANCIAL CAPABILITY is deleted |
| Ref 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? | The most current rates must be sent to DCAA for review, unless the contractor has an FRPA. If the proposed rates are more current than the FPRA, submit those rates to DCAA. If the contractor has an FPRA, must state that in the proposal. |
| RFP, Section L, Cost Volume, paragraph 9.2.6 Tab 6, last line | Please define the "70" reference in terms of percentage, dollars, or hours, etc. | Concur. Paragraph 9.2.6 is now 9.2.5. Added percentage sign after 70%. |
| L9.1 Cost proposals will need to be submitted for each task order including options and a six-month extension | Please clarify that Table L9-1 is to be submitted for the basic effort and options for the performance period stated in each task order, plus a six-month extension. Is Table L9-1, column titled "Ending OFY", to include cost and fee for the six-month extension of each task order? | The basic year and each option year shall be segregated using Table L9-1. The 6-month extension has been deleted. |
| L9.1 The Government has stated the ceiling for travel (other direct costs) is $1,375,000 to include all applicable indirect costs and tax (if applicable). | The travel ceiling amounts stated in Task Orders 1, 2, and 3 are $20k, $250K, and $20K per year, respectively. The task order travel ceiling costs total $290K / year for 5 years, totaling $1,450,000, which exceeds the ceiling cost for travel stated in L9.1. Please clarify the travel ceiling. | Each TO has a travel ceiling. Do not propose travel costs; use the government provided ceiling amount for each TO. Para L9.1 will add this information. |
| L9.2.5 Provide the information and documentation required by DFARS 232.072-2(b) and 232.072.3. | RFP Section L6.2.17 required offerors to submit copies of their latest financial statements in Volume I. RFP Section L9.2.5, DFARS 232.072-2(b) and 232.072-3, also require balance sheet, income statements, and other financial documentation be submitted in Volume IV. In lieu of submitting duplicate information, we respectfully request that all information required to support the Contracting Officer's determination of responsibility as required in FAR 9.104-1 be included in Volume IV. | Para L9.2.5 FINANCIAL CAPABILITY is deleted |
| L9.2.7.1.8 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 | Our cognizant DCAA Office advises that only a Government Contracting Officer may request a review of a proposal. Please advise how we may comply with the requirement and what is the due date to submit the proposal to DCAA. | Offerors are to submit rates to DCAA prior to the proposal due date. PCO will request a an audit from DCAA, if required. |
| L9.2.7.2 As part of Table L9-1, list the proposed hours, rates, and calculated amounts for each direct labor category by OFY. | The workload data in each task order define a full time equivalent (FTE) as a 40-hour workweek. Are offerors to base their proposed costs on Table L9-1 on a productive work year or on a full time equivalent (FTE) work year, which includes both productive and non-productive time? | Offerors are to base their proposals on productive time. |
| 9.2.7.1.2 and 9.2.7.1.4 Ensure the attached Air Force Proposal Adequacy Checklist (AFPAC) at Table L9-3 is completed and submitted as part of your proposal. In addition, it is highly recommended that you flow this checklist to your subcontractors/affiliates. Furnish Tables L9-1 thru L9-3 for the entire performance period. | The Air Force Proposal Adequacy Checklist (AFPAC) requires a proposal reference page for each item on the checklist. Is the AFPAC at Table L9-3 required to be submitted by the prime and all subcontractor/affiliates for each task order? | Offeror is highly encouraged to provide the checklist for subcontractors/affiliates. |
M
| Section M | ||
| Reference | Question/Comment/Rationale | Resolution |
| M 3.4 Prime offerors are permitted to meet the requirements of FAR 52.219-14 the offeror must meet the percentage on all issued task orders and not necessarily on individual task orders. | Does the Government have a specific (required) methodology for assessing compliance with the “50% rule”? That the solicitation include specific methodology for determining compliance with 52.219-14. | The methodology for assessing compliance with FAR 52.219-14 can be found in CDRL A002 entitled Status Report |
| RFP, Section M, M3.0, 3.2.1, a, Subfactor 1 | Enumerated items begin with #8. Please confirm whether or not this is the Government's intent. | Corrected |
| M, 3.2.1 | Technical Factor Acceptability, item a. numbering starts with response 8). Were responses 1) thru 7) inadvertently omitted? | Corrected |
| Section 3.3.2, Relevancy, second paragraph | Can the government please confirm the intent of this paragraph? This paragraph discusses the relevancy of an offeror's performance that is either not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be assigned. Our interpretation leads us to the following conclusions. The paragraph appears to state that an offeror's past performance in this situation shall be determined to have unknown past performance. The paragraph states further that this past performance shall be considered "acceptable". Shouldn't this situation generate a past performance rating of "unacceptable" rather than "acceptable" if the past performance is so limited it cannot be rated? | No, per DOD source selection procedures "unknown" receives an "acceptable" rating. |
| Section M 3.0, 3.2.1 | Suggest delete the words "Knowledge of" and leave it as just "Technical Capabilities". | Paragraph reads correctly. |
| Section M, 3.2.2 | In the first line, add an 'ly' to get 'technically acceptable'. | Changed |
| Section M 3.3, par. 4, line 1 | Suggest change from 'two aspects' to 'three aspects', relevancy, recency, performance. | Paragraph reads correctly. Per DOD source selection procedures there are only two aspects to past performance: relevancy and recency. |
| Section M 3.3.3 | Change from 'as' to 'a', and add 'basis' after unacceptable. Reasoning: to be consistent with previous paragraphs about ratings (3.3.3). | Sentence will be changed to read "past performance team shall evaluate past performance on a acceptable/unacceptable basis as defined in Table 4. |
QASP
| QASP | |||
| Reference | Question/Comment/Rationale | Resolution | RFP UPDATE |
| QASP, 5.3 | Please provide the referenced "non-Surveillance Matrix." | There is no non-Surveillance Matrix. Reworded to read "Therefore, the COR has the right to conduct assessment for Surveillance Matrix items as well as items that are not on the Surveillance Matrix. When the COR identifies unacceptable performance of an item not on the Surveillance Matrix, ..." | Para 5.3 was updated as suggested. |
| Text is truncated from that found in the PWS…i.e. no "Quality Control and Quality Standard" section. Please confirm whether or not this is the Government's intent. | The sentence ending in "Contracting Officer" needs a period. The Matrix in the QASP is identical to PWS para 4.0. Ref PWS 3.1.1 for Quality Control and Quality Standards info. Contractor is required to submit a Quality Control Plan IAW PWS 3.1.1 as part of the proposal. | Para 6.1 was total re-written by the SSEB team, so this comment is moot. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .