DS_TATs_Draft_RFP_QA_Final_19Jun13.xls

XLS spreadsheet 105 KB Posted Jun 19, 2013

Attached to: ESG DS TATs Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: FA8075-13-R-0001
Issued by: Department of the Air Force Air Combat Command

About this file

From the source

Updated Q A for DS TATS Draft RFP - 19 June 2013.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to ESG DS TATs, newest first.
File	Type	Posted
ppi_tool.accdb	—	Jul 25, 2013
Amendment_02.doc	DOC document	Jul 24, 2013
DS_TAT_RFP_Qs As-PostedtoFBO24Jul13.xls	XLS spreadsheet	Jul 24, 2013
DS_TATs_RFP_Amendment1_PostedtoFBO.doc	DOC document	Jun 27, 2013
DS_TAT_RFP_5Qs As-PostedtoFBO27Jun13.xls	XLS spreadsheet	Jun 27, 2013
FA8075-13-R-0001_Section_J_Attachments_25Jun13.doc	DOC document	Jun 25, 2013
DS_TATs_RFP_25Jun2013.doc	DOC document	Jun 25, 2013
DS_TATs_Draft_RFP_QA_Final_2May13.xls	XLS spreadsheet	May 2, 2013
Notice_FedbizOpps_S_B_Director.doc	DOC document	Apr 23, 2013
Draft_RFP_Section_J_Attachments.zip	ZIP file	Feb 20, 2013
DS-TATs_PreSolicitation-Final.doc	DOC document	Feb 20, 2013
DS_TATs_Draft_RFP_Q A.xls	XLS spreadsheet	Feb 19, 2013
DS_TATs_Draft_RFP_19Feb13.doc	DOC document	Feb 19, 2013
PreSolicitation_Notice.docx	DOCX document	Oct 15, 2012

Show all 14

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

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

DS TAT DRFP Q&A

	DS TATs Draft RFP Questions & Answers			As of: 19 June 2013
	#	Solicitation Section	Question/Comment	Response
	1	L4.2.6	If an Offeror has an IDIQ contract that is not formally assessed at either the TO or IDIQ level, but is able to provide a single point of contact who can verify its performance record for the entire IDIQ, can the contract be cited at the IDIQ level?	We will evaluate it as long as it meets recency and relevancy criteria.
	2	Section H.1.2.e, page 33 of 125	With respect to the cost/price for travel and materials, there are multiple references in the draft RFP which state that travel costs will exclude fee. Travel in the referenced section is delineated as Cost Reimbursable. Materials, Equipment and Supplies are also delineated as Cost Reimbursable, but do not have the separate references excluding fee. Would the Government please confirm that this is intentional, and that it anticipates that competition will determine appropriate fee on materials? We offer that there are multiple Government references available as to the cost of materials on Government contracts, and the profit motive and statutory fees which would indicate that this would be an appropriate methodology. We are providing some references for your consideration:	Yes this was intentional. IAW with Section H.1 COMPETITION POOLS and ORDERING PROCESS paragraph e. "Cost/price for travel and materials: 1. Travel - Cost Reimbursable specifically excludes profit and fee and for H.1, e, 2. Material, Equipment, and Supplies - Cost Reimbursable it does not. Section L.5.4.2 does not exclude profit or fee on material, equipment and supplies but does specifically exclude it from Travel. Therefore Fee will not be allowed on Travel but can be on materials, equipment and supplies.
	2 (continued)		A. The statutory maximum fee for R&D contracts is 15%. The Defense Contract Pricing Reference Guides, Volume 3, Cost Analysis, Chapter 6, Analyzing Direct Material Costs, Chapter Introduction states, “Direct material costs often account for more than half of total contract cost. This chapter will present points to consider when you develop a prenegotiation position on direct material costs.”
As an example, if a $1M effort were 50% labor and 50% direct materials, to achieve a 15% fee on the contract would require proposing a 30% fee on the labor.	See above answer for this continuation of Question number 2.
	2 (continued)		B. Neither of the premier DoD small business research and development programs, the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program, nor the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program, exclude fee on materials.	See above answer for this continuation of Question number 2.
	2 (continued)		C. The Indirect-Cost Management Guide, October 2001, Web edition only (not in print), published by the Defense Systems Management College Press, offers further insight into the challenges faced in Defense research and development, stating, “Large-scale research and development projects are necessary for a company to stay competitive in the defense industry; and research and development work, which is necessary to produce a new weapon system, normally takes many years to complete. Because DoD demands more and more technical advancements, a company is often required to develop totally new materials in order to stay on the leading edge of technology and to continue to remain competitive. This will most likely require new processes, tooling, machinery, and personnel. Product testing and evaluation is unusually expensive as it often involves production of prototype products. In addition to the research, development, and manufacturing efforts of defense prime contractors, they are responsible for overseeing the work of many subcontractors who are producing new, highly technical products."	See above answer for this continuation of Question number 2.
	2 (continued)		D. In addition, the DoD Weighted Guidelines pertinent to Profit/Fee Factors advises consideration of the following:

Material acquisition --managerial and technical effort necessary to obtain materials, given the:

• Complexity of items required;

• Number of purchase orders/subcontracts awarded and administered;

• Need for source development; and

• Complexity of purchase orders/subcontracts.	See above answer for this continuation of Question number 2.
	2 (continued)		In consideration of the data and references above, it would appear that fee on materials is appropriate, and accordingly, competition should be the methodology that determines the fair and reasonable price/cost to the Government.	See above answer for this continuation of Question number 2.
	3	Section 1, Paragraph 1.1, page 13 of 125	The Military Sensing Information Analysis Center contract is currently referred to as SENSIAC, vice being referred to as MSIAC. Would the Government confirm, and update the reference?	This will be corrected to SENSIAC in the final RFP.
	4	Section H.1.b.4, page 33 of 125	Will the Government provide insight into its implementation plan for the “rule of two” with respect to the two small business set-asides for Advanced Materials and Directed Energy? What consideration will be given to potential sole source requirements in accordance with 6.302-1(a)(ii)? In what situations would it make business sense for a Full and Open awardee to recommend this contract to its Government clients for Advanced Materials or Directed Energy efforts?	TAT requirements for Advanced Materials and Directed Energy will normally be set-aside for exclusive participation by the small businesses (SBs) in the respective small business set-aside competition pools of Advanced Materials or Directed Energy. The rule of two will apply when making set aside determinations. Only in cases where there are not at least two SBs that have the capability, capacity, and interest in bidding the TAT requirement in a partial SB set-aside pool (Advanced Materials or Directed Energy), would those focus areas be competed in the unrestricted F&O competition pool. The final RFP will be corrected to clarify this. The DS TATs contract does not contemp-late sole-source TATs; the fair opportunity competition process will be used for all TATs. There will likely be opportunities to team with SB awardees or other contractors to meet your Government clients' needs.
	5	Section H.1.d, page 33 of 125	The Government Accountability Office Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (Red Book) indicates that Research and Development efforts which produce a final report are nonseverable services. (Page 5-28: “Now consider a contract to conduct a study and prepare a final report, as in 65 Comp. Gen. 741 (1986). If this contract is terminated halfway through, you essentially have nothing … The latter two examples are nonseverable.”) Will requests for multi-year base periods be accepted, with the maximum base period being 36 months?	This reference is taken out of context. The Redbook guidance on this topic (pages 5-23 through 5-28) must be read as a whole. The requirement for a TAT final report is not necessarily dispositive as to the question of severability/non-severability. DS TATs that cover more than a single undertaking, require services that are continuing and recurring in nature, and from which the Government derives a regular, ongoing benefit throughout the TAT period of performance, meet the definition of severable. Most TATs have these characteristics and are deemed to be severable notwithstanding the fact that they also require a final report at conclusion. The contracting officer will make a severability determination on each TAT at the outset of the procurement process. TATs may be established to have one performance period for the length of the Task Order, or may be structured to have multiple one year periods (base period plus options) as determined most appropriate by the Contracting Officer.
	6	Section M3.1.1.4 Subfactor 1d.1, page 121 of 125	(Weapon Systems) Should the reference to the PWS be to PWS 1.4.2.9? It is unclear how the Government is counting the 12 emerging technologies. Would the Government clarify the specific 12 technologies?	Yes, the references to the PWS and the specific number of technologies in each technical focus area will be corrected and clarified in the final RFP. The technologies being referenced are those listed within each focus area description in the PWS. They are listed after the words "the contractor shall have technical familiarity to work with these STI subject areas:" and each one is separated by a semi-colon.
	7	Section M3.1.1.4 Subfactor 1d.2, page 121 of 125	(Military Sensing) Should the reference to the PWS be to PWS 1.4.2.3? It is unclear how the Government is counting the 18 emerging technologies. Would the Government clarify the specific 18 technologies?	See Answer #6.
	8	Section M3.1.1.4 Subfactor 1d.3, page 121 of 125	(Energetics) Should the reference to the PWS be to PWS 1.4.2.5? It is unclear how the Government is counting the 12 emerging technologies. Would the Government clarify the specific 12 technologies?	See Answer #6.
	9	Section M3.1.1.4 Subfactor 1d.4, page 121 of 125	(Autonomous Systems) It is unclear how the Government is counting the 13 emerging technologies. Would the Government clarify the specific 13 technologies?	See Answer #6.
	10	Section M3.1.1.4 Subfactor 1d.5, page 121 of 125	(Non-Lethal Weapons) Should the reference to the PWS be to PWS 1.4.2.6? It is unclear how the Government is counting the13 emerging technologies. Would the Government clarify the specific 13 technologies?	See Answer #6.
	11	L.5.4.1, Direct Labor Rates, page 99 of 125	Would the Government clarify its intent for the pricing of direct labor rates? Previous discussions with the Government have indicated that there was no intent for the inclusion of direct labor rates in the contract. Was this inclusion an oversight?	For this acquisition there will not be an inclusion of direct labor rates in the contract. However, Offerors will still have to include pricing of direct labor rates and their associated indirect rates for each of the Sample TATs they are proposing on. The RFP will be updated to reflect this.
	12	L3.6, ACRONYM LIST, page 95 of 125; L.2.2.6, Page 93 of 125	Would the Government confirm that the Acronym List specified in L3.6 is intended to be covered by L2.2.6, and that it does not count against the page limitations for the volumes?	The acronym list was intended to be referenced in both sections. Listing will not count against page limitations.
	13	Page 32, Para H.1. b	Is it the government's intent under this IDIQ to issue classified task orders that would require the offeror to provide a classified task order proposal response?	The potential exists for classified task orders.
	14	Page 95, Para L3.3.3., Line 6	indicates that the offeror shall identify supporting technologies and describe how these will be used in meeting requirements. Can the government clarify what is meant by "supporting technologies"? Is the government referring to technologies that the offeror uses to perform work for DS TATS such as modeling or research tools? Or is the government referring to technologies related to the five (5) Experience Capability Technology Focus Areas that support or enable the functionality of the technology focus area, such as how recognition software or communication technology would be part of a military sensing system?	The term "supporting technologies" refers to technology the offeror would use to support the TAT customer and perform the TAT performance work statement, for example: modeling tools, data mining tools, test applications, etc.
	15	Page 101, Para L5.4.5	Is it the government's intent that only the prime offeror submit their compensation plan, or must the prime's proposal include the compensation plans for all subcontractors?	Prime offeror
	16	Section M	There appears to be a discrepancy in the referenced PWS sections in the following paragraphs of Section M. Please confirm the references.

• Paragraph M3.1.1.4 Subfactor 1d item 1 Weapon Systems references PWS paragraph 1.4.2.5 for the emerging technology areas to be evaluated. PWS 1.4.2.5 lists energetics technologies. Should the reference be to PWS 1.4.2.9?

• Paragraph M3.1.1.4 Subfactor 1d item 2 Military Sensing references PWS paragraph 1.4.2.6 for the emerging technology areas to be evaluated. PWS 1.4.2.6 lists non-lethal weapons technologies. Should the reference be to PWS 1.4.2.3?

• Paragraph M3.1.1.4 Subfactor 1d item 3 Energetics references PWS paragraph 1.4.2.7 for the emerging technology areas to be evaluated. PWS 1.4.2.7 lists directed energy technologies. Should the reference be to PWS 1.4.2.5?

• Paragraph M3.1.1.4 Subfactor 1d item 5 Non-Lethal Weapons references PWS paragraph 1.4.2.8 for the emerging technology areas to be evaluated. PWS 1.4.2.8 lists autonomous weapon system technologies. Should the reference be to PWS 1.4.2.6?	See Answer #6.
	17	Section M paragraph M3.1.1.4	Section M paragraph M3.1.1.4 identifies the number of emerging technology areas that the offer must address to meet the requirement. Because of the discrepancy in the PWS reference paragraphs, the number of technologies do not appear to match the number of emerging technologies listed in the PWS paragraph for three of the capability areas. Please confirm the number of technologies the Offeror must demonstrate to meet the requirement.

• Weapon Systems - Currently lists 4 of 12 technologies, PWS 1.4.2.9 only lists 8 technologies. How many of those 8 are required?

• Military Sensing – Currently lists 6 of 18 technologies, PWS 1.4.2.3 only lists 8 technologies. How many of those 8 are required?

• Non-lethal Weapons – Currently lists 4 of 13 technologies, PWS 1.4.2.6 only lists 7-8 technologies. How many of those 8 are required?	See Answer #6.
	18	Section L	In reference to Section L 5.4.1, Direct Labor Rates (Page 99), do the maximum allowable CPFF labor rates and material and travel handling rates applicable to task orders also apply to our team members/subcontractors or will subcontractor costs be proposed separately as other direct costs and not subject to these limits?	Please reference answer to question number 11. Per Section L.5.4.3 any subcontractor accomplishing more than 10% of the total cost for any of the Sample TATs will submit Section J, J-6 DS TATs Cost/Price Table either through the Prime in a sealed envelope or individually by each subcontractor directly to the Government.
	19	Section L	Will the maximum allowable CPFF labor rates proposed also apply to labor rates proposed on any future FFP task orders?	No. See answer #11.
	20	Section L	In the situation where a team member or subcontractor does not have an adequate accounting system to support a CPFF type award, is it acceptable for subcontractors to submit a time-and-materials or firm-fixed-price proposal and are the proposed labor rates required to be at or less than the prime's maximum allowable CPFF rates?	It is acceptable for Prime to have different contract types with their subcontractors. Additionally, please see answer #11.
	21	Section L	Reference Section L.5.4.3, Subcontracts (Page 100), requires the completion of the Section J, J-6 DS TAT Cost Price Table for any subcontractor accomplishing more than 10% of the total work. Is this 10% requirement based on the percentage of subcontractor’s quoted cost to the total proposal cost or the percentage of estimated subcontractor labor hours to total proposed labor hours?	It is 10% of cost for each Sample TAT.
	22	Section L	Section L.5.4 , DS TATs Cost/Price Table will not be available until the Final RFP is posted according to a note in Section J of the Draft RFP. We believe it is in the best interest of both the Contractor and Government if the DS TATs Cost/Price table is made available as soon as possible prior to the posting of the Final RFP. This is a critical table needed to develop the Cost/Price Volume III.	Cost/Price Table will be available as an attachment in the RFP.
	23	Section B, page 9 Minimum and Maximum Values	Is $3B the final number for the maximum ceiling amount for all the TATs over all the multiple award contract holders or might there be ceiling increases? The DS TATs is potentially a combination of the TAT activity from six IACs that have historically done ~$2.8-5.1B (including BCO funding) over five year periods from 2006-2009.	$3B is the maximum ceiling cost estimate that includes a total aggregate of all contract holders. No contract ceiling increases are planned. The DS TATs ceiling value and the activities the contractors will perform are not the same as an aggregate roll-up of the historical value and activities of the individual legacy TAT contracts.
	24	Section C, PWS 1.1	Second Paragraph. Is there a reason SENSIAC was not specially mentioned as one of the six predecessor "legacy" contracts?	No. See Answer #3.
	25	Section C, PWS 1.5.1.3	Will there be a template provided for the required resumes?	There are no required resumes and therefore there is no template.
	26	Section J, J-1 attachment DRAFT_DS_TAT_RFP_DD254	HD TATs is used instead of DS TATs	This will be corrected in the final RFP.
	27	Section J, J-2 attachment DoD_Issuances_Affecting_Operation_HD_TATs	HD TATs is used instead of DS TATs	See Answer #26.
	28	Section L, L2.1	"Any proposal information submitted after the time frame listed in paragraph L2.1 will be considered nonresponsive and will not be accepted (see FAR 52.215-1)."

How will this time frame be presented in the final RFP since there were no time frames given in the draft RFP?	Proposal information is identified in Section L1.2 not L2.1 as stated. The RFP will be corrected for the RFP. The actual RFP release date will drive the submission due dates identified in L1.2
	29	Section L, L3.1	Subfactor 1c is missing the focus areas for Sample TATs 3 and 4. It is listed in Section M.	This will be corrected in the final RFP.
	30	Section L, L3.3.1	Subfactor 1d is listed in the group with 1a, 1b, and 1c as a Sample TAT. Subfactor 1d is Experience/Capability that is described in Section L3.3.3	The Technical Capability subfactor consists of four sub-subfactors. These are: 1a. - Sample TAT 1, 1b. - Sample TAT 2, 1c - Sample TATs 3 and 4 and 1.d. - Experience/Capability to perform TATs related to Weapons Systems, Military Sensing, Energetics, Autonomous Systems, and Non-Lethal Weapons. The verbiage in the paragraph at the beginning of the Technical Capability subfactor will be deleted and consolidated into sub-sub-factor 1.d "Experience/Capability" in the final RFP. Paragraph L.3.3.3 will be corrected to read L.3.3.2.
	31	Section L, L3.3.2	Missing Section L3.3.2	See Answer # 30.
	32	Section L, L5.4.2	Sample TATs 1 & 2 use CLIN 0003 and Sample TATs 3 & 4 use CLIN 0002. Does this imply that Sample TATs 1 & 2 will be A&AS sample contracts while Sample TATs 3 & 4 will be RDT&E sample contracts?	The CLINs identified in the Draft RFP were place holders and the actual CLINs will be clearly identified for each Sample TAT upon RFP release.
	33	Section L, L5.7 and
Section M, M3.3.7	Is a line of credit necessary for an Offeror in the Full and Open competition pool?	Yes.
	34	General	If a TAT requires an aircraft will it operate as a public aircraft during flight operations?	No TAT will require the contractor to develop or furnish an aircraft. This requirement is primarily for scientific and technical research and analysis services.
	35	General	Will there be a Government Flight Representative assigned to the main DS TATs ID/IQ contract?	No.
	36	L2.2.7	Is the cover sheet for each volume excluded from page count?	Yes
	37	L4.2.6	Is the separate Excel file required for Item K of the PPIS excluded from page count? Should this be included as an Appendix to the Volume?	Yes it will be excluded from the page count. The RFP section 2.2.1 "PAGE LIMITATIONS" adds Past Performance Relevance Evaluation Matrix for PWS Scope as one of the items not counted in the maximum page limits.
	38	Reference p.122; para. M3.3.1;	Third sentence states: “Price analysis will be used by comparing Offerors’ prices to each other and to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE).” Will the government provide the IGCE and if so when can we expect to see it?	No, the IGCE is an internal document and will not be released.
	39	Section M.3.1.1.4 and PWS 1.4.2	Section M.3.1.1.4 subparagraphs refer to 'emerging technologies' enumerated in PWS 1.4.2.x. PWS 1.4.2.x makes no reference to 'emerging technologies', but instead to 'STI subject areas'. Please confirm that section M 'emerging technologies' are intended to refer to the PWS's 'STI subject areas'.	Section M.3.1.1.4 will be revised in the final RFP to remove the word "emerging" where it appears before "technologies".
	40	M3.1.1.4 Subfactor 1d: Non-Lethal Weapons: … PWS 1.4.2.8….	Please confirm that PWS reference should be to 1.4.2.6.	See Answer #6.
	41	M3.1.1.4 Subfactor 1d: Non-Lethal Weapons: The requirement is met when the Offeror demonstrates experience/capability in at least four of the 13 emerging technologies ….	PWS 1.4.2.6 contains 5 emerging technology areas. Please clarify requirement for number of emerging technologies to address.	See Answer #6.
	42	M3.1.1.4 Subfactor 1d: Military Sensing.. PWS1.4.2.6	Please confirm that PWS reference should be to PWS 1.4.2.3	See Answer #6.
	43	M3.1.1.4 Subfactor 1d: Energetics.. PWS1.4.2.7	Please confirm that PWS reference should be to PWS 1.4.2.5	See Answer #6.
	44	M1.1 Factor 1 and L3.1	Suggest designating Sample TAT 4 as SubFactor 1d and Experience/Capability as SubFactor 1e.	See Answer #30.
	45	M3.1.1.3 Subfactor 1c – Sample TAT 3 –	Suggest having Sample TAT 4 correspond to a new paragraph M3.1.1.4 and renumber current M3.1.1.4 to M3.1.1.5	Both Sample TAT 3 and Sample TAT 4 will be evaluated based on the criteria listed at M3.1.1.3.
	46	L3.3.3 EXPERIENCE/CAPABILITY	There is no paragraph L.3.3.2. Suggest including a paragraph L3.3.2 as a 'Reserved'	See Answer #30.
	47	General Question	Can offerors get attachment J6 prior to release of the final solicitation?	See Answer #22.
	48	L3.3.1	Will offerors be provided a more detailed outline for the sample TAT beyond that prescribed in section L3.3.1?	No.
	49	1.6.2.1	Per section 1.6.2.1, if the offeror uses company/team IP to develop the STI for the government customer, will that IP be protected from distribution?	As stated in PWS paragraphs 1.6.2 and 1.6.2.1, please reference the DFARS clause 252.227-7013 "Rights in Technical Data". This clause establishes the terms of the government's rights to technical data developed with mixed funding or developed exclusively at private expense.
	50	M3.2.3.1	Section M3.2.3.1 sets the dollar value for ‘very relevant’ at over $100M. The specific focus areas aside for SBs, Advanced Materials and Directed Energy Weapons are areas where technically relevant past performance (PP) contract values typically fall far below the DS TATs fiscal relevance dollar value. Section L4.2.1 requires that at least two (2) of the five (5) PP information sheets be from the Prime Offeror. Some SBs within the NAICs threshold (1500 employees) will have relevant PP, but fail to meet this fiscal threshold. In order to ensure that SBs can compete for the two set-aside focus areas, would the government consider changing the ‘very relevant’ criteria for the SB portion to a pass-fail at $500k minimum. At current thresholds, the government may unintentionally eliminate some very relevant technical PP.	This question relates to the relevancy rating of the dollar value only and per the RFP relevancy for individual contracts will be given to extent that the effort, or portion of effort, is the same or similar in technical nature and scope of the DS TATs focus areas, complexity of the requirement, contract type, and dollar value [magnitude of effort]. The $100M is for IDIQ type contracts with past performance assessed at the IDIQ level. The Delivery/Task Orders under IDIQ type contracts where past performance is assessed at the Delivery/Task Order level will be evaluated as Somewhat Relevant for cost type contract(s) when they are greater than $500K. Only SBs will compete against each other for one or both of the set-aside focus areas.
	51	M	The PWS reference numbers in paragraph M3.1.1.4 appear to be incorrect. For example, PWS reference for "Weapons Systems" is listed as PWS 1.4.2.5 when it should be PWS 1.4.2.9. What are the correct PWS references?	See Answer #6.
	52	L3.3.1 Sample TATs	The Draft RFP requests a schedule that "details the task level effort and deliverables". Providing a response that showed task logic and all scheduled deliverables is challenging to present in the 15 page count limit given font size restrictions and other topics to be addressed in the response. We request DTIC consider allowing additional page count specifically for schedule to allow a presentation more representative of how an actual task would be managed with scheduling tools. E.g., Allow 13 or 14 pages for the base sample TAT response but allow up to 10 to 15 pages for schedule presentation. For a complex multiple year task, 10 pages still represents a high level summary level presentation.	The RFP will have a 20 page limit for each Sample TAT.
	53	L4.2.4 Organizational Structure Change History	This subject appears to have a 2 page limit but the information is requested for the Prime and any subcontractor Past Performance presented. Will DTIC consider allowing 2 pages for the Prime and an additional 2 pages for each subcontractor with one or more Past Performance submissions?	The Government believes 2 pages is more than sufficient for the Organization Structure Change History.
	54	H.12	Reference H.12 The contractor shall, without additional expenses to the Government, obtain all licenses, certifications, and permits required for the performance of work.
We can envision a situation where, for example, extensive environmental permitting may be required, to modify a unique energetics test facility. In this case we would expect the requirement to modify the test facility and obtaining the necessary permits, licenses, and certifications would be specified in the SOW....Therefore, we request that the Gov’t clarify this clause to read "The contractor shall, without additional expenses to the Government, obtain all licenses, certifications, and permits required for the performance of work unless specific licenses, certifications and / or permits are specifically required by the TAT SOW."	The rules governing accounting for contractor costs (direct, indirect, billable, unbillable) are established at FAR 31.2 and DFARS 231.2. The fact that a TAT PWS requires a contractor to incur a cost in order to successfully perform the TAT is not the controlling factor in determining how the costs are accounted for. The general rule of thumb is that allowable and reasonable costs that benefit one and only one customer and that are required to perform that customer's contract are allocable to that contract. Allowable and reasonable costs that benefit multiple customers are normally accounted for as indirect costs. Paragraph H.12 has been clarified to add the applicable FAR and DFARS reference.
	55	L	Paragraph L3.1 and L3.6 require an Acronym List as an attachment within the Technical Volume but it is not listed in the Volume I table at paragraph L2.1. If the Acronym List is required, is there a page limit as prescribed for other sections in Volume 1?	Please reference L.2.2.6. The acronym list for each volume is contained within the Glossary, which has no page limitations.
	56	1 , L and M	There is inconsistency among Technical Focus Area names in paragraphs 1.4.2, L2.1, L3.0, and M3.1. For example, paragraph L3.3.3 lists "Weapons Systems Technology" as one of the five focus areas for experience and capability in Volume 1, but paragraph 1.4.2.9 states the same Technical Focus Area as "Weapon Systems." Similarly, paragraph L3.3.3 lists "Autonomous Systems" while paragraph 1.4.2.8 states it as "Autonomous Weapon Systems." Different names for the Technical Focus Areas could affect the offeror's narrative in Volume 1. What are the correct names for the Technical Focus Areas?	This will be corrected in the final RFP.
	57	Pg. 91, Section L2.1 and Pg. 94, Section L3.3	Will the Government consider allocating 1-2 pages to serve as an introduction for the technical capabilities and approach? Currently no pages are allocated for Sub Factor 1 Technical Capability.	The overview paragraph for subfactor L.3.3 has been removed as a stand-alone paragraph. See Answer # 30.
	58	Pg. 94, Section L4.1	As a large business, will the Government permit the use of past performance from multiple CAGE codes provided that performance was from organizations under the control of the same common parent company?	Yes, as long as past performance information submitted, either Government or commercial, is for the same business unit proposing to perform the DS TATs requirements and meet recency and relevancy criteria. See Section L4.1.
	59	Pg. 122 M3.2.2	DRFP states “Government will only consider contracts (or task/delivery orders if past performance information was collected at the task/delivery order level) completed or ongoing within the past three (3) years from the formal release date of this RFP”. Will the Government consider a longer period for project recency evaluation?	No.
	60	General	Does the Government plan to hold an industry day for the DS TAT?	Industry days covering DS TATs have already been held. Information on these industry days is posted at www.fedbizopps.gov.
	61	Pg. 91, Section L2, Pg. 93, Section L3.3.1	Will the Government consider allowing the detailed schedule asked for in para L3.3.1 to be an attachment that does not count against the overall Sample TAT page count.	No. See Answer #52
	62	M3.1.1 & M3.1.1.4	Section M3.1.1 (Sample TATs) requires offeror to address all emerging technology areas; however, section M3.1.1.4 requires offeror to address portions of the emerging technology areas. Is the offeror expected to address all emerging technology areas within the Sample TATs?	No. Section M.3.1.1. (Sample TATs) does not require offerors to address all emerging technology areas. It requires offerors to address the requirements of the sample TAT being proposed.
	63	1.4.2.1 through 1.4.2.9 & M3.1, M3.1.1.4	Are the terms "STI subject areas" and "emerging technologies" synonymous?	No. The PWS does not use the term "STI subject area" it uses the term " technical focus area". The word "emerging" before "technologies" will be removed from paragraph M.3.1.1.4 in the final RFP. The technical focus areas described in the PWS provide examples of numerous technologies that make up each focus area; some of these technologies are described as emerging technologies but not all.
	64	M3.1.1.4, Sub-Para 5, line 2	This paragraph states "…13 emerging technologies…" What is the correct number of STI subject areas in the "Non-Lethal Weapons" focus area?	See Answer #6.
	65	M3.1.1.4, Sub-Para 1	M3.1.1.4, Sub-Para 1 is the "Weapon Systems" focus area. Line 2 of this paragraph states "…12 emerging technologies enumerated in PWS 1.4.2.5…" PWS paragraph 1.4.2.5 is the "Energetics" focus area. Will the Government correct M3.1.1.4, subparagraph 1, line 2 to read "PWS 1.4.2.9?"	See Answer #6.
	66	M3.1.1.4, Sub-Para 2	M3.1.1.4, Sub-Para 2 is the "Military Sensing" focus area. Line 2 of this paragraph states "…18 emerging technologies enumerated in PWS 1.4.2.6…" PWS paragraph 1.4.2.6 is the "Non-Lethal Weapons" focus area. Will the Government correct M3.1.1.4, subparagraph 2, line 2 to read "PWS 1.4.2.3?"	See Answer #6.
	67	M3.1.1.4, Sub-Para 3	M3.1.1.4, Sub-Para 3 is the "Energetics" focus area. Line 2 of this paragraph states "…12 emerging technologies enumerated in PWS 1.4.2.7…" PWS paragraph 1.4.2.7 is the "Directed Energy Weapons" focus area. Will the Government correct M3.1.1.4, subparagraph 3, line 2 to read "PWS 1.4.2.5?"	See Answer #6.
	68	M3.1.1.4, Sub-Para 4	M3.1.1.4, Sub-Para 4 is the "Autonomous Systems" focus area. Line 2 of this paragraph states "…13 emerging technologies enumerated in PWS 1.4.2.8…" PWS paragraph 1.4.2.8 is the "Autonomous Weapons Systems" focus area. Will the Government correct M3.1.1.4, subparagraph 4, line 2 to read "Autonomous Weapon Systems?"	See Answer #6.
	69	M3.1.1.4, Sub-Para 5, line 2	M3.1.1.4, Sub-Para 5 is the "Non-Lethal Weapons" focus area. Line 2 of this paragraph states "…13 emerging technologies enumerated in PWS 1.4.2.8…" PWS paragraph 1.4.2.8 is the "Autonomous Weapon Systems" focus area. Will the Government correct M3.1.1.4, paragraph 5, line 2 to read "PWS 1.4.2.6?"	See Answer #6.
	70	M1.4.2.1	This offeror counts twenty-eight (28) STI subject areas under Survivability and Vulnerability. Will the Government confirm that there are twenty-eight (28) STI subject areas associated with M1.4.2.1?	See Answer #6.
	71	M3.1.1.1	For how many STI subject areas in the Sample TAT 1 shall the offeror demonstrate experience/capability?	Evaluation of the sample TATs will be performed as stated in M.3.1.1.2 and M.3.1.1.3. The evaluation will assess the offeror's capability to perform the entire sample TAT.
	72	M3.1.1.2	For how many STI subject areas in the Sample TAT 2 shall the offeror demonstrate experience/capability?	See Answer #71.
	73	M3.1.1.3	For how many STI subject areas in the Sample TAT 3 and the Sample TAT 4 shall the offeror demonstrate experience/capability?	See Answer #71.
	74	1.4.2.3 & M3.1.1.4, subparagraph 2.	This offeror counts seventeen (17) STI subject areas under Military Sensing. M3.1.1.4, subparagraph 2 reads, "...18 emerging technologies…" Will the government clarify the number of STI subject areas the offeror should demonstrate experience/capability?	See Answer #6.
	75	1.4.2.5 & M3.1.1.4, subparagraph 3.	This offeror counts eleven (11) STI subject areas under Energetics. M3.1.1.4, subparagraph 3 reads, "...12 emerging technologies…" Will the government clarify the number of STI subject areas the offeror should demonstrate experience/capability?	See Answer #6.
	76	1.4.2.6 & M3.1.1.4, subparagraph 5.	This offeror counts six (6) STI subject areas under Non-Lethal Weapons. M3.1.1.4, subparagraph 5 reads, "...13 emerging technologies…" Will the government clarify the number of STI subject areas the offeror should demonstrate experience/capability?	See Answer #6.
	77	1.4.2.8 & M3.1.1.4, subparagraph 4.	This offeror counts nineteen (19) STI subject areas under Autonomous Weapons Systems. M3.1.1.4, subparagraph 4 reads, "...13 emerging technologies…" Will the government clarify the number of STI subject areas the offeror should demonstrate experience/capability?	See Answer #6.
	78	1.4.2.9 & M3.1.14, subparagraph 1.	This offeror counts ten (10) STI subject areas under Weapons Systems. M3.1.1.4, subparagraph 1 reads, "...12 emerging technologies…" Will the government clarify the number of STI subject areas the offeror should demonstrate experience/capability?	See Answer #6.
	79	Section B, Page 9	Under "Minimum and Maximum Values," CLIN 0001 is titled "Management Reporting." In the Section B table, CLIN 0001 is titled "IDIQ-Level Program Management Support." Will the Government correct this inconsistency?	This will be corrected in the final RFP.
	80	Section B, Page 9	This section states that the total ceiling for all DS TATs MAC IDIQ contracts will not exceed $3B. Is that total for the F&O awards, or does it also include the SB set-aside awards?	The ceiling includes all awards -- F&O as well as SB set-aside.
	81	Section B, Page 10	This section states that if the Government exercises the option(s) for CLIN 0004XX, the ordering period dates will be extended for CLIN 0002 (RDT&E DS TATs). Wouldn't the Government also extend the ordering period dates for CLIN 0003 (A&AS related to RDT&E DS TATs)?	No not for A&AS IAW 10 USC 2304b.
	82	Section 1.4.2.2, Page 14	In this section, emphasis is placed on analyzing mechanical and electrical systems with extremely low failure rates. Should this be extremely high failure rates, as systems with extremely low failure rates exhibit high reliability?	Yes. This will be corrected in the final RFP.
	83	Section 1.5.1.2(a), Page 19	Does the Government plan to require each IDIQ MAC awardee to bid on a minimum number of Task Order RFPs?	No.
	84	Section 1.5.2.2, Page 20	According to Exhibit A, the Final Technical Report should be CDRL A0001	This will be corrected in the final RFP.
	85	Section 1.5.2.3, Page 20	According to Exhibit A, the Monthly Metrics Reports should be CDRL A002, not A001	See Answer #84.
	86	Section 1.5.2.4, Page 20	According to Exhibit A, the Monthly Cost Tracking and Financial Report should be CDRL A003, not A002.	See Answer #84.
	87	Section 1.5.2.5, Page 20	According to Exhibit A, the Weekly Activity Report should be CDRL A004, not A003.	See Answer #84.
	88	Section 1.5.2.6	According to Exhibit A, the STI Assessment Report should be CDRL A005, not A004.	See Answer #84.
	89	Section 1.7.2(b), Page 22	Does the TS Facility Requirement apply to all contractor sites at which TATs are being performed, or is the prime contractor only required to have one facility with a TS clearance?	Only one facility with a TS clearance is required, as long as it has the capability to perform any TS TATs that require(s) performance at the contractor's facility, as specified in the RFP DD Form 254.
	90	Section 3.2.2, Page 24	Does the statement "…on and To by TO basis" mean "on a TO by TO basis"?	Yes, this will be corrected in the final RFP.
	91	Section H3(a), Page 34	Would an OCI be present if a DS TATs F&O prime contractor was also a subcontractor on one of the DS TATs SB procurements?	Reference clause H.13 "Cross Teaming".
	92	Section L.5.4.1, Page 99	Would the Government explain its rationale for imposing maximum labor rates on offerors for CPFF task orders?	See Answer #11. The Government is not imposing maximum labor rates.
	93	Section L.5.4.1, Page 99	There appears to be an assumption that all labor categories for all years will be bid on the sample TAT's. If that is not the case, how are the maximum labor rates established for the contract?	See Answer #11. The Government is not imposing maximum labor rates.
	94	Attachment L-3, Page 115	Are offerors expected to send the Past Performance letter on their company letterhead with Mr. Dostal's electronic signature as shown in the attachment, or should an official from the offeror actually sign the letter?	Offerors should use their letterhead and have a representative from their company sign the letter.
	95	Section M.3.2.1	Is the statement "…the Government reserves can use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources" supposed to read ""…the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources"?	Yes, this will be corrected in the final RFP.
	96	H1 Competition Pools, para b.4	It is unclear how many SB's need to have the capability, capacity and interest in bidding the TAT requirement for it to be competed in unrestricted F&O competition pool. Will a TAT be put in the F&O competition pool with less than 4 SB bidders or 2 or more?	See Answer #4.
	97	M3.1.1.4	There appears to be several PWS paragraph numbers that don't match the titles, and the number of emerging technologies cited for each focus area don't seem to match the PWS. What are the right titles/paragraphs, and can the Government enumerate the technologies referenced? (1. Weapon Systems: The requirement is met when the Offeror demonstrates experience/capability in at least four of the 12 emerging technologies enumerated in PWS 1.4.2.5 related Question – should this be 1.4.2.9? There appears to be 10 subject areas?

2. Military Sensing: The requirement is met when the Offeror demonstrates experience/capability in at least six of the 18 emerging technologies enumerated in PWS 1.4.2.6 – Question - Should be 1.4.2.3? There are 8 subject areas and 8 types of sensors – where does 18 come from?

3. Energetics: The requirement is met when the Offeror demonstrates experience/capability in at least four of the 12 emerging technologies enumerated in PWS 1.4.2.7 – Question – Should be 1.4.2.5? There are 10 subject areas – where does 12 come from?

4. Autonomous Systems: The requirement is met when the Offeror demonstrates experience/capability in at least four of the 13 emerging technologies enumerated in PWS 1.4.2.8 Question – there appear to be 20 subject areas – what are the 13?

5. Non-Lethal Weapons: The requirement is met when the Offeror demonstrates experience/capability in at least four of the 13 emerging technologies enumerated in PWS 1.4.2.9 – Question – Should this be 1.4.2.6? It is hard to find 13 subject areas?)	See Answer #6.
	98	Attachment L-2 MA-4	There is no requirement for a BSL3 facility in the PWS, but it is identified as a factor in past performance input. Is there a requirement for BSL3 facility in past performance?	No. MA-4 will be removed from Attachment L-2 in the final RFP.
	99	PWS Paragraph 1-2a	This paragraph infers that when working TATs the contractor should contact the BCO to verify work to be accomplished does not duplicate that which is available through the DTIC archives. Is this understanding correct? If so, shouldn’t this be the responsibility of the RA prior to initiating a TAT?	Reference Attachment J-4 "TAT Standard Operating Procedure", the clarification provided in Section J (list of RFP Attachments and Exhibits) of how that procedure will be adapted to the multiple award TAT contracts, and the SNIM "Multiple Award Contract Task Order Performance Work Statement Template(PWS)", specifically "Task 2 - STI Relevance Assessment and Gap Analysis", posted at http://iac.dtic.mil/snim.html. These provide an explanation of the literature search process that will occur for each TAT, and the responsibilities of the BCO and TAT contractors.
	100	Section H.1
Paragraph b.4	When a small business competes under the partial (Advanced Materials or Directed Energy) or unrestricted Full & Open task order, must the Small Business Prime perform 50% of the work for the task order?	When a SB prime performs a TAT in the SB set-aside pool of Advanced Materials or Directed Energy, the FAR clause 52.219-14 "Limitations on Subcontracting" will apply to the SB prime. Thus, the SB prime will be required to perform at least 50% of the cost incurred for personnel with its own employees. As stated in the clause, it is not applicable to the unrestricted portion of a partial SB set-aside contract.
	101	Section L5.4.1	For each labor category or job classification title proposed (e.g. “Senior Scientist”, Technician” or “Lead Engineer”) provide a narrative description of related qualifications, duties, and responsibilities within the Section J, J-6 DS TATs Cost Price Table or as an attachment to the cost proposal." Can offerors propose additional labor categories at the Task Order level?	Yes these were just examples of some similar or like labor categories.
	102	Section 4 Evaluation (Management Approach)	"MA-4. Management of Bio Safety Level 3 Laboratory requirements (If required for contract performance)". There is no mention of Bio Safety Level 3 in the draft RFP. Can the Government please provide additional clarification on the Bio Safety Level 3 Laboratory requirements for DS TATs?	See Answer #98.
	103	Para 1.7	Security Requirements states that for personnel performing on individual TATs may be required to have a clearance up to the Top Secret (compartmented and collateral) level. Can the Government please expand on the meaning of "compartmented" in this section. Does this mean there is or may be a requirement for access to Special Compartmented Information (SCI). If yes, please advise what the requirement is. Does this mean personnel must be "eligible for" access to SCI (e.g. Final Top Secret Clearance and completed Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI) or is the requirement for personnel to have current/active access to SCI in JPAS within a certain time window (e.g. within the past 2-years)?	Yes, there may be a requirement for access to Special Compartmented Information (SCI) on individual TATs. What that means will differ and will be specified on individual TATs PWS's. It could mean "eligible for" or it could mean they must have current/active access to SCI within a certain time window.
	104	General Question	For a newly formed Joint Venture, how will the Government evaluate past performance of the partners who make up the Joint Venture?	Per RFP Section M3.2.3, for the purpose of this evaluation, the term “Offeror” includes the prime Offeror and/or teaming members, joint venture partners, and subcontractors. In order to be considered Relevant the effort must have been performed by the same business unit that is being proposed to perform the DS TATs requirements. IAW FAR 9.601 (1) Two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor.
	105	Section L 5.4.1, Direct Labor Rates (Page 99)	In reference to Section L 5.4.1, Direct Labor Rates (Page 99), will bidders have to submit maximum allowable CPFF labor rates for all labor categories bidders expect could potentially be used to execute MAC TATs or just the maximum allowable labor rates for labor categories needed to execute the Sample TATs? If Government is looking for the maximum rates for all labor categories expected to be used over the life of the contract, will the Government be asking for maximum FFP labor rates as well?	For this acquisition there will not be an inclusion of maximum allowable CPFF labor rates or FFP labor rates in the contract. The RFP will be updated to reflect this. However, Offerors will still have to include pricing of direct labor rates and their associated indirect rates in the Cost Model, for each of the Sample TATs they are proposing on. Offerors will submit cost proposals that are realistic for the work to be performed, reflects a clear understanding of the Sample TAT requirements, and is consistent with the various elements of the Offeror's technical proposal.
	106	Section L	L4.2.2 Given the broad scope of the Defense Systems solicitation, would the Government please consider expanding the page limit for the past performance information sheets (PPIS) from 5 pages to 6 or 7 pages for each of the 10 PPISs requested? It is extremely challenging to show relevancy of a project to 9 technical task areas and 9 technical focus areas as well as address relevancy and quality of management approach, small business utilization, and cost performance within the current 5-page limit.	No, the page limit is sufficient at 5 pages for past performance information sheets.

Sheet2

Sheet3

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Nov 14, 2017.