All_FTS_DRFP_Questions_as_of_11_Sep_15.docx

All FTS DRFP Questions as of 11 September 2015

1. Question: Since the previously anticipated RFP date (August 2015) no longer applies, if possible, can the Government provide an updated RFP and award time frame?

Answer: At this time, there is no change to the award dates. Once the final RFP is issued, any changes to the award time frame will be identified.

2. Reference: PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT, Task Order 0001:

Question: Is it the Government’s intent that the first two sentences of task 3.7.3 be repeated as task 3.7.5?

Answer: Paragraph 3.7.5 has been deleted.

3. Reference: PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT, Task Order 0001:

Question: The contractor full-time equivalent reporting addendum’s reporting period states “input of FY12 data is required by 31 Mar 13.” Please clarify when this information is due.

Answer: The second sentence, “However, due to the delayed implementation, input of FY12 data is required by 31 Mar 13” of Section 9 Reporting Period has been removed from the final PWS.

4. Reference: Draft RFP Section L, paragraph L3.2.6.2.1 lists the Small Business (SB) types and suggested percentage of work to be performed by each and paragraph L3.2.6.2.2 describes a table that all Offerors must provide. Within that table, Offerors are asked to provide their “[e]xpected dollar value of the subcontract.” Generally, cost information is not permitted in an Offeror’s Technical Volume.

Question: May Offerors provide the percentage of work each SB will perform rather than actual dollar amounts?

Answer: In the technical proposal, the offeror may provide its anticipated percentage of subcontract work rather than dollar amounts. Example table in final RFP Section L3.2.6.2.2 will be changed to show percentages in lieu of dollar values.

5. Reference: Draft RFP Section L, paragraph L1.2.1 states that “Each page shall be counted except the following: Cover pages, tables of contents, tabs, glossaries, acronym lists, lists of figures, resumes, letters of intent to accept employment, information regarding Potential Conflicts of Interest, and conflict of interest mitigation plans.” Section L, paragraph L1.2.4 requires offerors to provide a Solicitation Cross-Reference matrix indicating by ITO, PWS, paragraph number, the corresponding proposal paragraph in that section which addresses the referenced item.

Question: Is the Solicitation Cross-Reference matrix excluded from the proposal page limits?

Answer: Yes, the Cross-Reference matrix is excluded from the proposal page limits.

6. Reference: Draft RFP, Section L, paragraph L3.2.1 states that “The Technical proposal shall consist of individual proposals for each of the Task Order Performance Work Statements (PWS) identified below,” and then identifies the six [sic] separate Task Order Performance Work Statements. This section further states that “Sub-Factors 1 and 2 concern the performance of Task Orders 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, 0005 of PWSs while Sub-Factors 3 and 4 concern the performance of the Basic IDIQ PWS/contract.”

Question: Do the individual proposals for each Task Order PWS consist only of Sub-Factor 1, Technical Solutions and Sub-Factor 2, Knowledge and Experience, or do the individual proposals also include the management plan and the small business subcontracting and participation plans?

Answer: Management and small business subcontracting plsn are NOT required for task orders. In the final RFP offerors will be required to provide a technical volume for the basic IDIQ PWS/Contract for subfactors 3 and 4.

7. Reference: All Draft Task Orders, Para. # 3.1 Question: The Draft Task Order Performance Work Statements (PWS) cite individual Management requirements (note that TO 002 encompasses all paragraphs through 3.8, and not just management). The non-standardized requirements do not identify a consistent approach to Task Order Management structure. Recommend for a consistent management approach and ease of evaluation that this requirement reflect the same structure identified in the Draft Base PWS.

Answer: All task order PWSs will have the proper references for Section 3.

8. Reference: Basic & TO 001 PWS Core Planning Team, Para. # 1. Scope Question: There is only one mention of Follow-on Test & Evaluation (FOT&E) in the Scope/Background section of the Base PWS defining AFOTEC testing; and no mention of FOT&E test planning in the TO 001 Core Planning PWS although other specific test types are mentioned.

If FOT&E planning is expected to be part of this contract, and it is implied that FOT&E will be a part of each PWS, it would confirm the necessity for FOT&E if it is specifically called out in the documents. This would eliminate any confusion as to the government’s intent that the Contractor support FOT&E events for both planning and integrated testing.

Answer: FOT&E has been added to the basic PWS at paragraph 3.7. Any future FOT&E work will be awarded as a separate task order.

9. Reference: Draft Contract Award Document, Secton [sic] H Special Contract Requirements Question: The H-170, Non-Personal Services clause is not included in the master IDIQ, nor could we find it in section I. Contractor believes such language is imperative in the execution of this contract due to the nature of the work occurring on Government site. Incorporating this clause defines the working roles, and helps delineate Personal Services boundaries in the relationship between Government and Contractor.

Answer: H-170 will be added in the final RFP.

10. Reference: Section B Question: Under “Clauses incorporated by Full Text” of Section B, the government states “Pursuant to the clause FAR 52.232-22 [Limitation of Funds] in Section I, the total amount available for payment and allotted to this contract for CLINS XXX through XXX is $0.00. It is estimated that this amount is sufficient to cover performance through [Insert Dates].”

Would the government clarify the insertion of this clause, as written, in Section B of the ID/IQ as opposed to the individual Task Orders? Does the clause call for funds recognition at the ID/IQ level in addition to the Task Orders? If the Clause, as written, is retained in Section B of the contract, will every Task Order Funding action be required at the ID/IQ level first?

Answer: FAR 52.232-22 will be modified on the final RFP in the basic. The clause will be included in individual task orders.

11. Reference: Section I Question: There is no FAR Clause 52.232-22 Limitation of Funds cited in Section I.

Answer: Clause 52.232-22 will be added in the final RFP in Section I.

12. Reference: Section H Question: H-100 Paragraph g states “Award of Task Order will be accomplished using either a Best Value or Performance Price Trade-Off (PPT) process as defined in AFFARS Part 5315 and specified in RFTOP.”

Why is this discriminator criteria cited if the ID/IQ will be a Single Source award?

Answer: Subparagraph e. will be modified on the final RFP and subparagraph g. will be removed from the final RFP.

13. Reference: Section H Question: The government has not included a requirement for Contractor/Team Member/Subcontractor Identification clause in this section. Will Contractor Identification on Government Site be a requirement and how will it be addressed?

Answer: See AFFARS 5352.242-9000, Contractor Access to Air Force Installations, in Section I, full text.

14. Reference: Draft RFP, Para. # L5.4.1, Page 69 Question: Ref: Submit a cost summary by major cost elements by Offeror Fiscal Year (OFY), for each separately priced CLIN, and roll-up to Total Task Order Summary (Table L5.4.1 headings in the sample table are by CLIN and OFY, with the final column being CLIN Total).

Would the Government allow the pricing to be presented by OFY by Contract Period, then provide a separate CLIN summary by major cost element? We are concerned that this requirement may generate multiple spreadsheets to provide the information to this level.

Answer: Yes, the Government will allow pricing to be presented by OFY by Contract Period, then provide a separate CLIN summary by major cost element. Section L5.4.1 states, “…using a format similar…”

15. Reference: Draft RFP Section M – Evaluation Factors: Technical Factor, Para. # Technical Factor, Page 88 Question: This section states: “The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to:

(1) SUBFACTOR 1, TECHNICAL SOLUTION – The proposal demonstrates to the Government the offeror’s ability to:

To avoid any misunderstanding or misinterpretation between bidders, should the government identify the 5 Task Orders as the subject of the evaluation in this section?

Recommend changing the language as follows:

“The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to:

(1) SUBFACTOR 1, TECHNICAL SOLUTION – The proposal demonstrates to the Government the offeror’s ability to meet the Government’s technical requirements for each Task Oder [sic], to include:

Answer: Change (adding “for each task order”) will be incorporated into the final RFP.

16. Reference: Section I - Clauses Incorporated by Full Text, Clause 5253.209-9000 Question: Will the government require an overarching OCI Mitigation Plan to be applied and flowed down from the ID/IQ level, or will OCI mitigation be addressed only if there is an OCI at the individual Task Order level, as identified under Clause 5253.209-9000?

Answer: The OCI clause is included in the RFP. Mitigation of OCI is not acceptable.

AFOTEC will have OCI requirements at the overarching contract level.

Please note, specific restrictions in federal law also apply. Potential offerors and subcontractors are encouraged to become familiar with federal law applicable to Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E), specifically 10 USC § 2399, which protects the impartiality of OT&E. Contractors that develop a weapon systems may not be involved in AFOTEC work, except to the extent the contractor will operate the weapon system in combat. Accordingly, mitigation of OCI will not apply to FTS.

17. Reference: DRFP Section B CLIN 0003, Other Direct Costs/Travel, pg. 3 of 95; DRFP Section L5.4.1, Cost Summary by Cost Elements, pg. 69 of 95 DRFP Section L.5.4.1 states “Do not separately price ODCs/Travel.”

Question: Will the Government please confirm that subcontract labor, inter division labor, and consultants are to be included in CLIN 0002, Labor?

Answer: Confirmed. Subcontract labor, inter division labor and consultant are to be included in CLIN 0002, Labor.

18. Reference: DRFP Section H-100, Task Order Proposal Procedures, pg. 11 of 95; DRFP Section M001, Source Selection, Subsection M001(b), pg. 87 of 95 DRFP Section H-100 implies a competitive task order proposal scenario characteristic of a multiple contract award.

DRFP Subsection M001(b) states “The Government anticipates awarding one contract for the Fighter Test Services (FTS) requirement.”

Question: Will the Government please confirm that this is a single award contract? Recommend modifications to DRFP Section H-100 to remove all multiple award requirements, including organizational conflicts of interest documentation and past performance citations, and all language referring to multiple contractors, offerors, and awards.

Answer: Confirmed. This will be a single award contract. H-100 subparagraph e, will be modified on the final RFP and subparagraph g. will be removed from the final RFP.

19. Reference: DRFP Section H-270, Key Personnel, pg. 18 of 95; DRFP Section L3.2.5, Subfactor 3, Subsection L3.2.5.1.5(g), pg. 60 of 95 DRFP Section H-270 refers to “Key Personnel,” whereas Subsection L3.2.5.1.5(g) states, “Offeror shall provide qualifications of personnel deemed critical by the Offeror…” Question: Will the Government please confirm that for proposal purposes, the terms “key personnel” and “critical” personnel are synonymous?

Answer: For the purposes of this RFP, key and critical are synonymous. The final RFP will have the terminology shown as “key/critical”.

20. Reference: DRFP Section L4.4, Specific Content, Subsections L4.4.1 and L4.4.6, pgs. 64 and 65 DRFP Subsection L4.4.1 lists a five page limit for Past Performance Information Sheets.

DRFP Subsection L4.4.6 states “Each Performance Information Sheet for each contract is limited to three pages.”

Question: Will the Government please resolve the past performance citation page limit discrepancy noted above?

Answer: Subsection L4.4.6 will be corrected in the final RFP from three pages to five pages.

21. Reference: Draft PWS Task Order 0003, Test Execution Team, pg. 1 of 14 Comment: Heading states Task Order 0004.

Answer: All task order PWSs will have the correct task order numbers on them .

22. Reference: Section L Format & Specific Content, L.3.2.1 – L.3.2.2 Question: Is L.3.2.2 provided as an outline for Task Order specific proposal organization, given it only addresses Subfactors 1 and 2 and risk; and will the Government add a higher level overall Technical Volume organization outline that includes Subfactors 3 & 4? (Contractor could not find a Tech volume outline that included Subfactors 3 & 4).

Answer: A requirement for a separate technical proposal for the basic PWS that addresses Sub-Factors 3 and 4 will be added to the final RFP under L3.2.1.

23. Reference: Section I - Clauses Incorporated by Full Text, Clause 52.219-28 Question: The Government requires Contractor to certify as follows: “The contractor represents that it ( ) is, ( ) is not a small business concern under NAICS Code 541712 – assigned to Contract No.______________.”

The government’s response to BFI Q&A’s stated that the NAICS Code would be 541712 (R&D, 1500 people) Aircraft Exception. Will this remain the standard for the NAICS requirement?

Answer: Yes, the NAICS 541712, 1500 employees is the standard. Clause 52.219-28 will be corrected in the final RFP.

24. Question: Is AFOTEC is open to industry discussions with the technical customer prior to FRFP release?

Answer The draft RFP was intended to be the venue for industry to provide feedback to the Government with regard to technical/contractual requirements of the RFP. There are no plans to hold further technical discussions with industry.

25. Question: With the DRFP on the street, does the Government have any plans for a second Industry Day and or site visit at Edwards?

Answer: No. A second industry day will not be held. Site visits at Edwards AFB will not be conducted.