Responses_to_ATS_Draft_RFP_17_Nov_2016.pdf

AFOTEC Test Services (ATS) Draft RFP Responses 17 November 2016

# Offeror Question/Comment Official AFOTEC Reply

1 Section I: Will FAR 52.219-14 be included in this solicitation? If not, why not?

Yes, FAR 52.219-14 - Limitation of Subcontracting Clause will be included in the Final RFP.

2 Section I, Contract Clauses FAR 52.219.28(d): Is the NAICS 541712 size standard set at 1500 employees, as stated elsewhere (Sect L, page 54) in the DRFP?

NAICS code will be updated to reflect 1500 employees.

3 Section I, Contract Clause FAR 52.222-2: If overtime is authorized for this contract, what is the overtime premium cost limit?

Contract Clauses, 52.222-2 will be included, but overtime will not be authorized under this contract.

4 Section I, Contract Clauses FAR 52.248-1:

How does the government envision that Value Engineering would be applied or realized on this professional services contract?

Value Engineering does not apply to this contract. Clause 52.248-1 will be removed from Final RFP.

5 Section I, Contract Clauses AFFARS 5352.209- 9000(a)(2)(b): If a contractor is participating in DT as a representative of the government program office, and this effort meets the exceptions of 10 USC §2399, why is Actual OCI presumed up front?

This approach of 'guilty until proven innocent' adds significant risk to bidders in that AFOTEC may not approve the Mitigation Plans or issue waivers, when in fact no OCI ever existed. We recommend this issue be dealt with and waived prior to each bidders' bid preparation and submittal.

AFOTEC cannot determine, in advance, if there is an OCI where the offeror is working on DT and then on OT&E. Each case is fact specific.

Please see GAO opinion B-412187 where GAO found an "impaired objectivity" OCI existed because contractor had to evaluate its own work product.

6 Section I, Contract Clauses FAR 52.219-1: NAICS code and size standard information is missing.

Please fill in this missing information.

NAICS code is 541712 and size standard is 1500. The clause will be in Final RFP.

7 Section L, Table L1.2: Please clarify if "Basic Proposal" refers to the Sub-factor 2 response and "Task Order" refers to the Sub-factor 1 response for each individual Task Order.

AFOTEC will edit Section L, Para. 4.2.3.1.1, and added Para. 4.2.3.1.2; to clarify between basic proposal and Task Order requirements in Final RFP.

8 Section L, Para 4.2.3.1: Will the government provide current test and data status for each TO to support accurate TO staffing and cost proposals?

If not, will the gov't provide an estimated staffing matrix so all bidders utilize the same baseline assumptions, and thus enhance fair competition?

Current test and data status will not be provided.

Bidders Library will contain DoD, CJCS, AF, and AFOTEC directives and instructions pertaining to OT. AFOTEC will provide qualification requirements in the TO PWS.

9 Section L, Para 4.2.3.1.1: Given the potential for 90 pages (30 per TO) of largely redundant material that needs to be proposed and evaluated, will the government consider moving most of these Areas to a core technical approach section, and leave the TOs to address only the proposed staffing within each TO?

Edited par 4.2.3.1.1 and added 4.2.3.1.2 to further clarify between basic proposal and task order requirement in Final RFP.

10 Section L, Para 4.2.3.1, items 2,3,6,8,9: We recommend that the Government provide a bidder's library with the following information:

a) Key documents AFOTEC requires to understand and/or provide input to the acquisition process

b) Description of current AFOTEC processes to create an ITD

c) AFOTEC current M&S capabilities

d) Description of current AFOTEC processes to verify and analyze data

e) Description of current AFOTEC reporting processes.

We also recommend that the Government change the proposal requirement to having the Offerors discuss how they will deliver these capabilities.

This would help eliminate the potential for incumbent bias.

A Bidder's Library will be available when the Final RFP is posted, but only the applicable documents that are listed in the PWS will be available.

11 Section L, Para 4.2.3.2(c): Request that the Government provide staffing matrix to level the playing field between incumbents and non-incumbents.

AFOTEC will provide qualification requirements in each Task Order PWS, but no specific staffing matrix.

12 Section L, Para 4.2.3.1.1: Will the government provide bidders with the current guidance documents and internal instructions for these specific requirements?

Bidder Library to be furnished with the release of final RFP release.

13 Section L, Para 4.2.3.2.2(e): Does the government desire a high-level clearance status summary (i.e., all proposed TO personnel (100%) will be TS-SCI eligible)?

The ability of the offeror to provide a work force ready to go, including TS-SCI eligible personnel, will have a direct impact on the performance and transition. Offeror must provide security clearance status, and refer to DD Form 254, Section C, as noted.

14 Section L, Para 4.2.3.2.5: FAR 52.207-3 only applies to Government employees displaced by the contract action, not incumbent contractors. Please clarify whether Government employees are being displaced. If this clause is intended for Right of First Refusal for incumbent contractors, then we recommend the Government find a different mechanism.

Removed FAR 52.207-3 clause.

Replace clause with FAR 52.222-17 in Final

RFP.

15 Section L, Para 4.2.3.2.5: This statement implies a different requirement depending on the specific team assembled for the proposal and thus separate evaluation criteria for different Offerors. We recommend removing this statement and having only one set of requirements for all Offerors.

AFOTEC will pay for necessary phase-in costs, but will not evaluate them during source selection.

phase-in costs should be detailed separately.

16 Section L, Para 5.1: Is the intention of the government to only require a single PP citation for the Prime contractor, or will there be a minimum number of citations required from the team? This is a critical requirement, and is a major factor in teaming alignment within industry.

In accordance with 5.4.4.6 Past Performance Information Sheets paragraph states, “The Offeror shall submit no more than a total of five

(5) Performance Information Sheets identifying active or completed contracts, either Government or commercial.”

17 Section L, Para 6.0: Will the government please clarify this deviation from the DoD trend to mandate minimum SB Prime participation at >50%, and also clarify why the SB Participation goals are included for exclusively SB-led teams?

Clarified. The effort will remain 100% Small Business set aside. There will be no further Small business participation goals except to meet the minimum 50% rule as found in FAR 52.219-14.

18 Section L, Para 7.3.4.4: Can the Government please clarify the reference to "The overall skill mix"?

AFOTEC will provide qualification requirements in the TO PWS.

19 Section L, Para 7.4.2: Will the government provide an estimated staffing matrix so all bidders utilize the same baseline assumptions, increase the likelihood of our developing competitive proposals, and ensure fair competition for serious bidders?

AFOTEC will provide qualification requirements in the TO PWS.

20 All three TO’s, Para 5.4.3: Please clarify the Date of Submission requirement for CDRL A003 for all three Technical Orders

Reconfigured each TO’s section 5.4.3 to read:

"Minutes are due five (5) workdays after end of local area events and seven (7) workdays after the end of all other events to TOs”.

21 Section L, Para 1(b): Will the Government be providing the Statement of Objectives and System Specification requirements?

No. The Basic and Task Order Performance Work Statement (PWS) were included as an attachments to the RFP.

22 Section L 2.2.1: Are position descriptions also excluded from page limits?

Resumes and PDs have page limitations see Table L1.2.

23 Section L4.2.3.2.1.c: May resumes and position descriptions be included in an attachment to Volume II?

Yes, resumes and PDs may be included as an Attachment to Volume II.

24 Section L, Para 2.2.4.note: Will the Solicitation Cross Reference Matrix be excluded from page limits?

Yes, the Cross Reference Matrix is excluded from page limits.

25 Sect. L, Para 4.2.3.1: “The following task orders will be awarded (no sample tasks are provided)”.

Is the intent of this statement that each of the referenced task orders will be awarded with contract award?

If it is the Government’s intention to award each of these task orders coincident with ATS contract award, please identify the evaluation factors that will be used to determine how task orders will be awarded. The contract evaluation criteria and factors are by and large clear; but we are unable to locate in the DRFP how the Government will determine the award of the actual task orders.

Yes, three task orders will be awarded at time of contract award. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. See Evaluation Factors, Section M.

26 Section L, Para 4.2.3.1.1: Is it the Government’s intent that offerors provide general approaches to sub-paragraphs 2 – 9 in the basic section of the technical approach and specific responses to those items in the TO response, where appropriate? Or is it the Government’s intent that Sub-Paragraphs 2-9 be addressed solely in the TO responses?

Edited Para 4.2.3.1.1 and added Para 4.2.3.1.2 to distinguish information required for the proposal and task order in Final RFP.

27 The items listed in Section L, Sub-Paragraph 4.2.3.1.1, Paragraph 7, and again in Section M, item (7) under Sub-factor 1, addresses different programs than those being solicited in the RFP (i.e.

AAMRAM, Bomber Aircraft & Communication Satellites vs. C2ISR, NukDEW and Cybersecurity).

Please clarify how the government wishes to have these three programs addressed in each Task Order’s Technical approach; as supplements to the specific Task Order program, or as separate efforts from each Task Order’s Subject Program?

See revised Para 4.2.3.1.1 and added Para

4.2.3.1.2 which clarified basic proposal and task order requirements. Successful offerors must identify their understanding of technical requirements to support the Basic PWS and the PWS for each of the three (3) task orders.

28 Section L, Para 6.2: Have specific small business participation goals been established or does Paragraph 6.2 only relate to “general reference only” for the small business numbers on page 83?

Corrected. Eliminated the Small Business Participation Goals in Final RFP.

29 Section G: Is the following Deviation clause applicable to this solicitation? There is no FAR Clause 52.219 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) found in the RFP.

Corrected. See Final RFP.

30 Section B: Does the government intend to pay by check made payable to the contractor, or may the Contractor request Electronic Payments?

Corrected. Payments will be electronic.

31 Section M: CLIN 0001 states that three Task Orders will be awarded. Section M states that the Government intends to issue “two or more ID/IQ contracts”; and then further states that ‘All Task orders shall be combined into a single color rating for [the] sub-factors 1 and 2.” If the subfactors are combined into a single color rating, how does the government intend to discriminate between contractor bids when issuing the individual Task Orders?

Offerors must propose on all three Task Orders.

Each individual Task Order will receive a single color rating for this sub-factor. See updated Sections L and M in Final RFP.

32 Section L, Para 4.2.3.1.1: Does the government want the bidder to address these PWS requirements for each TO in the Overall ID/IQ Technical Approach, or should the bidder address these Paragraphs separately in each Task Order’s Technical response?

Respond to each TO separately. Edited Para

4.2.3.1.1 and added Para 4.2.3.1.2 to clarify requirements between basic proposal and task order.

33 Section L Para 8.1.3 Section C: Please clarify the government’s intent in providing Task Order Estimates for each Task Order under Paragraph

8.1.3 of Section L.

The Task Order estimates are historical estimates only. Each Offeror must use their own business strategy in fulfilling the Governments requirement.

34 Section L, 8.3.1:It appears that the Government does not want Phase-In/Phase-Out periods priced separately, but included as part of the 60 month Period of Performance as one price the entire 60 months. Please confirm.

Yes, however, Phase-In and Phase-Out periods should be priced separately.

35 Section L: Please clarify the title for Paragraph

8.1.3 of Section L. In reviewing the RFP, the contractor noted that Deliveries, Performance and

Corrected. “Reflects Section C” in the final

RFP.

Estimates are under Section F, and there is no Section C in the RFP.

36 SF 33 Part 11: Does the government intend for the BASIC ATS PWS, dated 12 July 2016 and provided as an attachment, to be noted in Part 11 as Section C?

Yes. The Basic ATS PWS will be awarded and each TO will be awarded as Section C. Basic PWS and TO's are separate documents in the Final RFP.

37 Slide 16 of the AFOTEC Briefing to industry dated 9 June 16 states that the solicitation will be set aside for Small business. The DRAFT SF 33 does not identify the solicitation as Small Business Set Aside. Recommend the SF 33 be modified to identify the solicitation as Small Business Set Aside.

Corrected. See Final RFP.

38 General: The submission requirements for this proposal are comprehensive and complex.

Recommend that the due date for this proposal be set at 60 days from the release date of the Solicitation.

Revised. Proposals will be due 45 days from release of solicitation.

39 General: Will the government specify restrictions or specify that there are no restrictions?

Yes, the Government requires approval of all subcontractors. IAW FAR 52.244-2 (d).

40 Section L, Para 2.3: Suggest that offers be submitted by encrypted e-mail as the principal means of submission and that paper copies be submitted by USPS, FEDEX, or UPS not later than 2 working days after electronic delivery. This maximizes the offeror’s preparation time for a complex proposal and reduces B&P costs WRT to travel for delivery of hard copy proposals.

No. Comments concerning cost to small business considered. Separating deadlines for electronic and hard copy delivery of documentation creates an unnecessary risk of protest. Accordingly the government extended the period for response from 30 to 45 days. Early receipt of proposals is acceptable, and would reduce overnight shipping costs for offerors.

41 Section L, Para 3.1: Text in first Paragraph is identical to first three sentences of 3.1.1.

Recommend delete.

Corrected in Final RFP.

42 Section L, Para 4.2.3.2.1(e): Suggest that this Paragraph require a description of the corporate Quality Control Process that will be applied to the execution of AFOTEC task orders.

Offeror must identify its QCP for the basic PWS only. Offeror may provide additional aspects of the QCP, if in Offeror's judgement, refinements are required for a specific TO.

43 Section L, Para 4.2.3.2.3: Will the government identify the guidance and or instructions that will drive the training requirements and certifications?

Yes, see Basic PWS Para 3.1.1 and Para 6.2.5 for required training.

44 Section 1 (a) (General Instructions p.68) notes that the Government intends to award two or more basic Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract(s). Responses are required to address the “Basic AFOTEC ATS PWS” and the individual “Task Orders (0103”. Section 5.4.4.6 (Past Performance Information Sheets, page 80) states “For instances where Performance is formally assessed for the IDIQ contract as a whole, the Offeror shall identify the single point of contact that can verify the Offeror's performance record under that IDIQ type contract. In instances where performance is not formally assessed at either level, Offerors shall submit past performance information at the delivery/task order level. Each delivery/task order submitted will be counted as one contract”.

Would the government clarify if both a single PP POC and multiple individual POCs are required for the response and may a designated POC fulfill both an overall POC and a TO POC as applicable?

Yes, one individual may serve as the Past Performance POC for TO and the Basic PWS.

45 Section L, Para 7.4.1: If a Prime Bidder is submitting Subcontractor bids utilizing T&M rates, in expectation of issuing T&M Subcontracts for the ATS Contract, should the Prime request that the Subcontractor’s fully disclosed proposal to the government be provided in a detail that illustrates the build-up of the Labor Category rates, as opposed to the RFP required Cost Plus Fixed Fee format?

Additionally, Prime is allocating hours for each T&M subcontractor in the overall bid, utilizing Subcontractor’s T&M Rates provided (Gov’t will have fully disclosed rate build-up). Does the subcontractor’s sealed package need to show extended price calculations to match the Prime’s submittal, or is the prime’s submittal of the price

IAW Paragraph 7.4.1 Subcontractors and Inter- Divisions are required to submit fully disclosed proposals in the same format as required of the prime, meeting the same deadline, with detailed build-up of proposed rates. Proprietary subcontractor information may be submitted separately to the government.

calculations sufficient; meaning the sub’s will provide T&M Rate Build-up only?

46 Section L, Para 5.4.4.6 (Past Performance Questionnaire, page 82): “The offeror shall exert its best efforts to ensure that there are at least two points of contact (PCO, Program/Project Manager, ACO, or equivalent) per relevant contract. Can the government clarify if it is acceptable if the contractor designated contacts choose to submit a consolidated response rather than replying individually?

No. Separate responses are required for each contract.

47 Section L, Para 6.2: In as much as this solicitation is set aside for small business the submission of a small business participation plan appears to be unnecessary since a minimum of the 50% of the cost of labor must be performed by small business which exceeds the DoD-wide goals for small business participation. Recommend that the requirement for submission of a Small Business Participation Plan be removed.

Revised. Small Business Participation Plan is not required.

48 Section L, Para 8.3.4.1 Table 7.3: Please remove this requirement, or limit it to any unique non-test facility or equipment requirements of the bidder. If the test-related GFP and Base Support requirement is maintained in the RFP, will the government provide bidders with the existing test documentation, including DTPs, to fairly support this proposal requirement? As an alternative, would the government consider allowing the winning bidder to specify this information post-award, once they have access to all current test planning information?

Table 7.3 is used if the bidder requires equipment other than typical installation support, which includes desk space, computer workstations and so forth.

49 Section L, Para.4.2.3.2.1: Requests information for which there appear to be no corresponding evaluation criteria in M002.b [i.e., items (a), (b), (d), (f), and (g)]. Please clarify how these items will be evaluated?

See Sections L and M.

50 Section C, Para 8.1.3L Are the Task Order Cost Estimates inclusive of the Travel and ODC values shown in section 7.4.7?

Yes. ODC/Travel are included. See Para 7.4.1 in addition to Para 7.4.7.

51 Section M, MM001: Please include specific evaluation criteria for assessing individual task order proposals to make task order award.

Added statement "Each individual Task Order will receive a single color rating for this sub-factor."

52 Section L, Para 5.4: Please clarify whether problem resolution is a requirement.

Yes, per Section L Para 5.4

53 Section L, Para 6.2: It appears the DoD guideline for subcontracting to VOSBs was inadvertently omitted from the Para. 6.2 guidelines. Please clarify.

Corrected. Subcontracting Goals removed in Final RFP.

54 Section L, Para 7.2: The Section 1 and Section 2 requirements are identical except for the last sentence in Section 2: Provide Cost Summaries here. Please clarify if the Section 1 material is to also be included in Section 2.

Section 1 material must be included in Section 2 Cost Summary.

55 Section M, M002.b.1: Does the government anticipate repeatedly evaluating these three specific systems under test within each TO as Sect L currently requires us to propose? Or is this evaluation made at the higher, overall Volume 2 Technical Proposal level? This clarification will Significantly affect the organization of offerors' technical volumes.

Edited Section L, Para 4.2.3.1.1 and added Para

4.2.3.1.2 to clarify between basic proposal and task order requirement in Final RFP.

56 Section M, M002.b.1, Item 7: Given the potential for 90 pages (30 per TO) of largely redundant material that needs to be proposed and evaluated, will the government consider moving most of these Areas to a core technical approach section, and leave the TOs to address only the proposed staffing within each TO?

No.

57 Section M, M002.b.1, Item 9: Will the government provide bidders with the current guidance documents and internal instructions for these specific requirements?

Yes, Bidders Library is available on http://www.fedbizopps.gov.

58 Section M, M002.d.Factor 3: Will the government please clarify this deviation from the DoD trend to mandate minimum SB Prime participation at >50%, Corrected. See final RFP.

and also clarify why the SB Participation goals are included for exclusively SB-led teams?

59 Section M, M002.e.Factor 4(3): Will the government provide current test and data status for each TO to support accurate TO staffing and cost proposals? If not, will the gov't provide an estimated staffing matrix so all bidders utilize the same baseline assumptions, and thus enhance fair competition?

AFOTEC will provide qualification requirements in the TO PWS.

60 Section M, M002: This section (d) appears to be missing?

Corrected. See final RFP.

61 ATS Task Order 0001 – NukDEW, Para 1.2: Will the government provide current test and data status for each TO to support accurate TO staffing and cost proposals? If not, will the gov't provide an estimated staffing matrix so all bidders utilize the same baseline assumptions, and thus enhance fair competition?

AFOTEC will provide qualification requirements in the TO PWS.

62 ATS Task Order 0002 - C2ISR, Para 2.0: Because the documents drive a bidder's solution, will these documents be provided to all bidders to promote fair competition?

Yes, relevant documents will be provided in the Bidder's Library.

63 ATS Task Order 0003 – CAP, Para 2.0: Will the government provide current test and data status for each TO to support accurate TO staffing and cost proposals? If not, will the gov't provide an estimated staffing matrix so all bidders utilize the same baseline assumptions, and thus enhance fair competition?

No. Current test and data status will not be provided. Current staffing matrix will not be provided. Government cost estimates are provided in Section M Para 8.1.3.

64 Section L, Para 7.4: Please clarify the Cost / Price requirements for 1) subcontractors being proposed on one or more of the task orders and 2) subcontractors not participating on any of the task orders. Are the Cost / Price requirements the same for all subcontractors, regardless of whether they’re proposed for a task order in the RFP?

IAW Paragraph 7.4.1 Subcontractors and Inter- Divisions are required to submit fully disclosed proposals in the same format as required of the prime, meeting the same deadline, with detailed build-up of proposed rates. Proprietary subcontractor information may be submitted to the Government separately.

65 Section L, Para 7.4.3: Please clarify whether offerors and their subcontractors should provide labor category pricing for any locations other than those specified in the three RFP task orders.

Do not include labor category pricing for locations that are not in the respective task order information.

66 Section L, Para. 7.4.7: Stipulates a Travel / ODC baseline of $50,000/ year for TO 001. TO 001, Para. 5.2 states a travel ceiling of $20K a year.

Please clarify which Travel ODC amount is appropriate for TO 001.

Corrected in Final RFP. ATS Task Order 0001 – NukDEW total is $50K per year.

67 Section L, Para. 7.4.7: Stipulates a Travel / ODC baseline of $490,000 / year for TO 003. TO 003, Para. 5.2 states a travel ceiling of $400K a year.

Please clarify which Travel ODC amount is appropriate for TO 003.

Corrected in Final RFP. ATS Task Order 0003- CAP total is $490K per year.

68 Section L, Para 4.2.3.2.1.(c): It is possible that key individuals identified in Attachment L1 may be proposed as key management or senior level technical personnel for the task orders included in the RFP, requiring their nameless resumes to be included in Vol. II.

Please advise how the Government would like offerors 1) to meet the Attachment L1 requirement to identify key individuals by name in Vol. IV and

2) meet the Sect. L, Para. 4.3.2.1.c requirement of not identifying proposed personnel.

These proposal references do not conflict.

Nameless resumes and PD's are requested in the RFP. The Government will not know If key individuals listed as Past Performance contacts also may be employed by the Offeror.

69 Section L, Para 5.4.4.1: Since the Past Performance Information (PPI) template is two pages long without any of the requested information, we recommend the Government increase the page limit for completed PPIs to five pages to allow for adequate inclusion of the requested past performance information.

Increased to 5 page limit in section L.5.4.4.1

70 Section M, Para b, Factor 1, Sub-factor 2,(6): The referenced L.7.2.2.5 appears not to be in the DRFP. Please clarify.

Corrected in Final RFP to read Section L, Para 4.2.2.(5).

71 Section. M, Para. c, Factor 2: Statement seems to imply that the offeror’s past performance in SDB subcontracting will be assessed to provide confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet its SDB subcontracting goals in the ATS Small Business

Corrected. Small Business Participation Plan deleted.

Participation Plan. Is this an accurate interpretation of this statement?

Is it the Government’s intention to evaluate an offeror’s past performance in part based on SDB subcontracting performance in compliance with the ATS Small Business Participation Plan? If so, then, does this not indicate that SDB subcontracting is required on the ATS contract – and should be included in Sect. L?

72 Section L, Para, 4.2.3.2.5: Please explain how the government will address this (in light of the Phase- In Transition requirements of the RFP) if the bidder is either an incumbent Prime or has included an incumbent Prime as a subcontractor on their submittal.

If the successful offeror is the incumbent then Phase-in is not required. Phase-in will be required for any new non-incumbent.

73 Section L, Para 5.4: Specific Content. Last sentence in para says “Categorize the relevant information into the specific Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor used to evaluate the proposal.” Does this sentence need to be removed, as it does not apply to offerors?

Sentence removed.

74 Section L, Para 5.4.4.1: Content of Past Performance Volume table, Row 7, column

2. Relevancy Matrix attachment is mislabeled as L6.

Should it be L4?

Corrected in Final RFP. The Relevancy Matrix attachment is labeled L4.

75 Section L, Para 4.2.3.2.5: Please clarify small business subcontractor work share percentage AFOTEC requires.

Corrected in Final RFP. Small Business Participation Plan deleted.

76 Section L, Para 7.1.3: Should the Cost/Price column on Page 1, Attachment L4. Relevancy Matrix table, row 1, column 4, Factor 2 Cost/Price be removed? If not, please clarify Cost/Price past performance evaluation factors.

No. Complete the relevancy matrix Attachment L4 as required.

77 Attachment L4: States “The number of citations listed in the Relevancy Matrix will be the maximum number allowed by Section L, Paragraph L8.2.4. Where is section L, Paragraph L 8.2.4?

Updated the attachment in Section L of the Final

RFP.

78 ATS Task Order 0003 – CAP, Para 3.5: Please clarify if there are missing words and phrases in Paragraphs.

Corrected in Final RFP. Clarified and reorganized sections 3.5.3 and 3.5.8.1.

79 ATS Task Order 0003 – CAP, Para 5.0: Please clarify if Paragraphs below are missing from draft and will be included in final RFP.

Corrected in Final RFP. Error in document Fixed errors referring to 5.4.13 and 5.4.14.

Section M, Para b, Factor 1, Subfactor 2,(1):

Section Suggest that this Paragraph be reworded to state “Offeror provide a description of the corporate Quality Control Process that will be applied to the execution of AFOTEC task orders.”

M002 b Subfactor 2 (1) now reads: Offeror provide a QCP that meets all aspects of PWS 3.1.4.

81 Basic ATS PWS, Para 3.1.4: Recommend that this be reworded to state “Submit a Quality Control Plan for each awarded Task Order that ensures the government receives the level of quality consistent with the requirements specified in the task order within 60 days of task order award and maintain the Quality Control Plan throughout the duration of the task order.”

Revised. However QCP is required as part of the RFP submission.

82 ATS Task Order 0003 – CAP, Para 1.0, 3.3.2.3, 5.4, and table 5.2: Offerors would greatly benefit from a standardized and comprehensive deliverables matrix which includes POCs, timelines, and any additional government requirements for all CDRLS.

Corrected in Final RFP:

a. Reports should go to AK7, address added.

b. For A024: 5.4.14 now reads 5.4.12

c. Section 5.4.6, 5.4.7 and 5.4.8 fixed to refer to section 5.4.12 of TO.

d. Para 5.4 now reads: to the Chief and the COR

83 ATS Task Order 0003 – CAP, Para Section 3.0.1 (Develop Event Proposal(s) and Capstone Assessment Plan(s), page 3) repeats the abbreviation “CAP” which was previously assigned to the Cybersecurity Assessment Plan in the TO Title and Section 1.0 Scope section of the OL-KT TO.

The position of this abbreviation “CAP” in 3.0.1 is unclear if the government is also assigning the abbreviation to the Capstone Assessment Plan in addition to the Cybersecurity Assessment Plan.

Would the government clarify if CAP is to be used interchangeably between the Capstone Assessment Plan and the Cybersecurity Assessment Plan as no

CAP stands for Cybersecurity Assessment Plan and is defined in the TO and acronyms list.

Capstone Assessment Plan has been changed to Capstone Event Plan and will be spelled out each time in the individual Task Orders and does not have an acronym assigned.

abbreviation for Capstone Assessment Plan is listed in the ATS Draft Acronyms listing?

84 ATS Task Order 0003 – CAP, Para 3.6: The government states in section 3.6 of the OLKT Task order that the contractor “shall provide IT support to maintain workstations, secure and non-secure voice, and video connected to NIPR, SIPR and JWICS networks”. In order for the contractor to determine the most effective level of resources necessary to accomplish this IT support tasking, would the government clarify the requirement by providing the following information:

1. What are the number of workstations to be supported? What is the nature and frequency of the expected maintenance? Will it involve installation of cable/fiber of new LANS or contractor expanded IT infrastructure?

2. Is there an expectation that the contractor be a system administrator on NIPR, SIPR and JWICS?

3. Does this IT support include server operations and maintenance? If so how many actual and virtual servers?

4 Does this IT support include staffing a Help Desk(s)? If so, is there an existing on-site Help Desk(s) and what is the current level of staffing? If there is an existing Help Desk(s), what are the hours of staffing and government metrics for successful support (response time/number of tickets per day, etc.)

5 Does this tasking require any SharePoint or Portal support? If so, what is the required level of professional services (ex. SharePoint Administrator, Designer, and/or Developer)?

See revisions. Edited section to reflect the following: 3.6 Information Technology Support at OL-KT, TX Location. Contractor shall provide IT support to maintain workstations and various equipment connected to NIPR, SIPR &

JWICS.

3.6.1 The contractor shall provide onsite IT

support in the manor of system administrator on NIPR, SIPR and JWICS (to include Org box maintenance, some SharePoint administration and portal support).

3.6.2 Contractor shall provide onsite IT support

to maintain up to 70 workstations connected to NIPR and SIPR networks and up to 5 workstations connected to the JWICS network.

3.6.3 Contractor shall provide onsite IT support

to maintain secure and non-secure voice and video on NIPR, SIPR and JWICS networks.

3.6.4 The contractor will not be required to

install cable runs, or perform system administrator duties and maintenance on network servers. There is no requirement for maintaining a help desk.

85 ATS Task Order 0003 – CAP, Para 6.1.7.3:

Suggest reword last sentence to read “Contractors may use CITRIX or other securely encrypted portals for AFOTEC work while TDY.”

There are only certain portals that are authorized on AFNET, CITRIX is not allowed.

86 ATS Task Order 0001 – NukDEW, Para 1.1:

Recommend reword the 4th sentence as follows:

“AFOTEC’s goal is to improve Contractor Testing (CT), Integrated Test (combined Developmental Test (DT)/Operational Test (OT)) by engaging the System Program Office (SPO) and developers to ensure the goals and needs of AFOTEC and the other Operational Test Agencies (OTAs) are considered, included, and met.” Justification: CT is early testing of components and subsystems, but can provide insight in to early capabilities/functionality of the subsystem and its place in the eventual full system.

No change.

87 ATS Task Order 0001 – NukDEW, Para 3.2.1.1(a): Do we consider the systems mentioned above as the baseline systems for which missions are identified? Or will there be other systems whose mission and thus environment we have to identify and define?

The programs listed in Section 1.2 do not constitute a baseline of systems. They are representative of the types of programs likely to be worked in the future.

88 ATS Task Order 0001 – NukDEW, Para 3.2.1.1.c.(i): In addition to the threats specified, will other characteristics of the interaction be defined? For example, distance, altitude, environmental factors, or other factors not named that may contribute to interactive effects?

No, the contractor should rely on the outcome of steps 1a and 1b in order to accomplish step 1c.

89 ATS Task Order 0001 – NukDEW, Para 3.2.2:

Recommend reword the sentence as follows:

“Participate in all relevant CT, DT and integrated test, and conduct OT, collect data where appropriate, perform data analysis, and report the results of each test event (A015).” Justification:

Contractor testing of components and subsystems is relevant to performance of the full system.

No change.

90 ATS Task Order 0001 – NukDEW, Para 3.3.6:

Recommend reword the sentence as follows:

“Witness or participate in all relevant CT, DT and integrated test. Investigate problems found with the system under test (SUT), and develop work arounds to allow mission accomplishment.”

Justification: Contractor testing of components and subsystems is relevant to performance of the full system.

No change.

91 ATS Task Order 0001 – NukDEW, Para 6.1.7.3:

Suggest reword last sentence to read “Contractors may use CITRIX or other securely encrypted portals for AFOTEC work while TDY.”

There are only certain portals that are authorized on AFNET, CITRIX is not allowed.

92 ATS Task Order 0002 - C2ISR, Para 3.3.1: Does the government mean DODAF Systems Engineering Processes?

No. Reference is to the AFOTEC ITD process.

93 ATS Task Order 0002 - C2ISR, Para 3.3.5:

Recommend reword to read “Recommend appropriate test facilities/ranges and identify improvements necessary to create an operationally realistic environment.” Justification: The purpose of OT&E is to test to operational requirements, therefore, to adequately assess within a test environment, it needs to be as operationally realistic as feasible, or cost effective.

Otherwise the environment is a limitation to test.

Corrected. See final RFP.

94 ATS Task Order 0002 - C2ISR, Para 3.3.14:

Recommend reword to read “Provide input in developing and revising critical operational issues, measures of effectiveness, measures of suitability, and survivability.” Justification: Survivability is necessary to MOE and MOS. If the system cannot survive within the operational environment, then the MOEs and MOSs will fail automatically.

No change.

95 ATS Task Order 0002 - C2ISR, Para 3.3.22:

Recommend reword to read “The contractor shall recommend for government approval instrumentation requirements, propose instrumentation solutions, and develop instrumentation to collect and store data.”

Corrected. See Final RFP.

Justification: The contractor should not be the one defining the government’s requirements.

96 ATS Task Order 0002 - C2ISR, Para 3.4.2:

Recommend reword to read “Coordinate with existing airspace/range management services, for providing airspace management for manned aircraft and/or unmanned air vehicles and ground vehicles tests, assessments, and field evaluation activities both within the continental United States (CONUS) and outside the continental United States (OCONUS).” Justification: Most ranges have an existing infrastructure for the airspace/range management.

Corrected. See Final RFP.

97 ATS Task Order 0002 - C2ISR, Para 3.5.6: Would the Government please clarify what “a man-made environment” is?

Corrected. See Final RFP.

98 ATS Task Order 0002 - C2ISR, Para 5.1: Is Det 5, Edwards AFB, CA the only location the Government would want contractor personnel to be permanently stationed?

Yes. Edwards AFB is currently the only permanent operating location for the C2ISR Task Order.

99 ATS Task Order 0002 - C2ISR, Para 6.2.3:

Suggest reword last sentence to read “Contractors may use CITRIX or other securely encrypted portals for AFOTEC work while TDY.”

There are only certain portals that are authorized on AFNET, CITRIX is not allowed.