DraftRFP QA's.doc

5 August 2011

Draft RFP Questions and Answers

1. Question: Is the PCMS HC tool the tool of choice to cleanse IPB data? Are there other tools being used? If so, what tools are being used?

Answer: USAF HC Tool is the tool of choice for the USAF.

2. Question: Does PCMS HC cleansed IPB data seamlessly load into PLMS Teamcenter 2007?

Answer: IPB cleansing and PLMS are separate project requirements and are not related as identified in this question.

3. Question: What other "COTS like products" will be encountered by the contractor in this effort?

Answer: None, other than identified in PWS (example: Microsoft Office)

4. Question: Based on the NAICS code (561410) is the small businesses size standard under $7M?

Answer: Correct

5. Question: Is PLMS already linked to AF legacy systems?

Answer: Not as of this question.

6. Question: Is IPB data that is cleansed by the PCMS HC tool currently being loaded into PLMS and used by functional maintenance personnel?

Answer: IPB cleansing and PLMS are separate project requirements and are not related as identified in this question.

7. Question: Our understanding is that the IPB TO is to be the primary source of M-BOM data. What are the other sources and will they need to be cleansed?

Answer: For this PWS requirement, IPB is the primary source of BOM data.

8. Question: PWS 2.1.1 indicates that the contractor should utilize established IPB cleansing processes from previous pilots completed. It also states the services to include: research, verify and/or correct information. Is part of the research to identify improvements to the established IPB cleansing processes?

Answer: Reference section 2.1.6 and 3.2.1 of PWS for this answer:

9. Question: The PWS refers to the PLM as Teamcenter 2007 or other COTS like product, is the pilot considering a different PLM system? Would the Pilot scope include providing over the shoulder training for another PLM system?

Answer: At this time USAF official COTS product is Temcenter 2007. As with all COTS products revisions do role out and USAF migrates to approved revisions. Example: Teamcenter unified

10. Question: Are there any final reports on the mentioned "past IPB cleansing projects" available to read?

Answer: FY10 cleansing pilot is still ongoing and no final report as of this question. FY09 pilot lesson learned below.

FY09 IPB cleansing pilot Lessons Learned

1. TOMA/TODO Account: Government organizations or Contractors have to establish or have a TOMA/TODO account to receive the TOs. Reference TO 00-5-1 and TO 00-5-3.

2. DLIS Certification: If military critical technical data is required to be accessed from an off-base (contractor) site, the specific contractor will require a DD2345, US/Canada Joint Certification Program, for each location the data will be accessed. For example, if the data is placed on a Community of Practice website or accessed via VPN from multiple locations, each specific location’s data manager will require their own approved DD2345 from the Defense Logistics Information Service (DLIS). The certificate is valid for five years and is renewable.

NOTE: DLIS certification can be obtained easily by going to www.dlis.dla.mil/jcp and completing the application online. Approval takes approximately five to seven business days.

3. Access to Military Critical Technical Data: Some weapon system TOs, such as cruise missile, have strict interpretation of distribution instructions and may require additional security measures for access and distribution of technical data even when data is extracted from the TOs and placed in MS Excel, Word or text files. This requires extra effort to include distribution statements and pop up warnings on files. In addition, if files are placed on a server or website such as a Community of Practice and will be accessed from a contractor site, even more stringent security measures may be required such as partitioning off servers and using dedicated computers. The WS PMO may insist on very limited access to the data and require that all computers and servers be wiped clean by reformatting after contract end.

Our team innovatively solved this problem by using existing USAF IDEs such as the USAF Portal and Community of Practice websites which provided a level of security already approved by the USAF and adding additional security controls through development of a security plan, requiring the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) to validate destruction of sensitive data, when no longer required.

NOTE: The rule of thumb is to treat all documents containing any technical data extracted from the TOs as marked on the cover page of the TO and limit access from contractor site where feasible.

4. Government System Access: Access to Government systems is paramount with the timely completion and processing of DD Form 2875. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/forminfo/forminfopage3211.html Getting to know the local Government system OPR greatly enhances the process flow. Minimum Government systems requiring access are: D043, Haystack, FEDLOG, and JEDMICS. If on a Government installation, the following additional software will need to be loaded on each workstation PC: Lotus Viewer for JEDMICS and D043 software.

NOTE: Most Government installations have a site license for Haystack and FEDLOG and do not require the submittal of a DD Form 2875 if work is performed on a Government site.

5. Contractor Viewing of Unlimited Rights Data Only: The AF does not own the product data for some of its systems, especially for those supported under Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) and for Commercial Derivative aircraft. This causes a supportability issue for the DMO, since it will have to negotiate with OEMs to obtain product data. THE CMP team did not experience major difficulty with data rights on this effort. Most all of OEM drawings were available for the IPB part numbers and lists reviewed on CM. We recommend running a query on the root part number in JEDMICS (e.g. part number 232-36018-4 – query on 232-36018 in JEDMICS).

6. Technical Order File Formats: Capturing IPB part related information is cumbersome due to the various formats the TOs are in. TOs which are just image files (bitmaps) or PDF only result in manual extraction of the data onto an Excel spreadsheet. Cleansing efforts of product data could be delayed due to the various formats of TOs. We have experienced many different product data formats on this effort, so we proactively developed multiple methods of digitizing, cleansing, etc. to solve this issue. Automated data extraction tools and methods would enhance the process.

7. Data Stripping: Time to strip data (TO Index/Figure Artwork, etc.) from the IPB pages of non-writable PDF formatted files needs to be factored into the total project timeline. TOs requiring the most amount of time are the ones that were built on image bitmaps or PDF. For example, 1,500 plus parts can take up to two weeks per one manpower equivalent and one month for 3,000 plus parts TO. PDF formatted TOs with no corresponding SGML file with 1,500 plus parts can take three to four days for one manpower equivalent. Stripped data is input into an Excel Spreadsheet. The minimum columns are: Records, TO Number, Figure, Index, Cage Code, Part Number, Indenture, Description, Quantity Per Assembly, Usable on Code, SMR Code, and Notes; however, if stripped data is provided by DART for the non-writable PDF IPBs, no stripping time is required.

8. EOs and NSNs: The source of truth when analyzing the health of the TO should be the TO itself because Engineering Orders (EO), in most cases, do not keep pace with the field changes in the affected TO; however, JEDMICS will shed light on how many EOs will need to be input to bring the baseline up to current operational (fielded) TO standards. D043, Haystack, and FEDLOG will also help identify which part numbers with a procurable SMR code need action either to make the AF a user of the part or to activate the NSN, or to establish a NSN for the part.

9. Figure Index Numbers, Indentures, and Artwork: When reviewing TOs, you will find numerous errors in the way part numbers are assigned index/figure numbers, how they are indentured and correlation between the assigned index figure numbers and the artwork (illustrations). Reference MIL-STD-38784.

10. DART Spreadsheet Light Cleaning: The technical review team should begin heavy cleaning once they receive the DART light cleaning spreadsheet. This data (spreadsheet), once heavy cleanup is completed, can be made available to the ES for validation of the heavy cleansing recommendations on that TO/ IPB. The ES will then need to submit an AFTO Form 252 for update of the applicable TO.

11. Initial DART Review: A basic rule is to always read the Front Matter contained in the IPB. For evaluating the various TO issues ground-rules need to be established on how the technical review personnel will annotate discrepancies found. This will establish a baseline on what the technical review personnel use to evaluate each TO IPB. For example, each review should:

a. Convert the DART spreadsheet Figure Column B from a Date Field to a Text Field. This could be fixed in DART by making the figure column text.

b. Add leading zeros (0) to cage codes that are missing them. When a cage code begins with zero (0), DART does not enter the zeroes in the cage code. This could be fixed in DART by making the CAGE column text.

c. When there is not a cage code assigned in the IPB, DART will either assign a cage code of “DUMMY” or arbitrarily assign what appears to be a legitimate CAGE Code. In some cases, it is totally incorrect.

d. When a cage code and part number is in the description column of the TO IPB, DART pulls this information and adds it to the DART spreadsheet parts list. (ES needs to determine if this part number/s needs to be shown in the parts number column of the TO IPB).

e. Annotate on the spreadsheet when part numbers are shown with no index number or the same index number and manually assign a unique index number IAW MIL-STD-38784, paragraph 4.6.16.1. For example, if there are multiple parts under index 1, then they should be numbered 1.1, 1.2, etc.

f. Add additional columns to the spreadsheet for Start, End, Total Time, and Comments. (More columns can be added as necessary and approved by the DCC).

g. Compare the Artwork to the parts list and annotate on the spreadsheet a missing index number on either the Artwork or parts list.

h. Annotate on the spreadsheet when an index number or numbers assigned on the Artwork fails to match the part description contained in the parts list.

i. Annotate on the spreadsheet when index numbers are not assigned on the part list but are shown on the Artwork.

j. Annotate on the spreadsheet when the same index number is shown on the Artwork but one or more for that index number points to different type part.

k. Annotate on the spreadsheet missing Cage Codes, SMR Codes, etc. When reviewing, you will find some TOs that do not contain SMR codes in the entire IPB. Some, but not many TOs will not have SMR codes for several parts contained in the IPB. When reviewing TO SMR codes, you will need to verify that they are acceptable SMR codes (See TO 00-25-195, Table 4-1)

NOTE: TO 00-25-195, Table 4-4 shows each field that makes up a SMR code and the corresponding ERRC. It also contains, in various chapters, the definitions for each element that make up a SMR code. TO 00-25-195 can be accessed at:

http://www.tinker.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-061220-055.pdf

l. Annotate on the spreadsheet when typographical errors are found in the part number or cage code.

m. Annotate on the spreadsheet other errors not listed above.

12. Equipment Specialist Support: When reviewing a DART spreadsheet against the TO and accessing data in JEDMICS, Haystack, FEDLOG, or D043, and ASSIST database, the physical presence of the ES would greatly enhance the heavy review process to confirm configuration including in-process AFTO Form 252 changes and usable on codes.

13. Database Line Item Review: The data cleansing process steps do not necessarily need to be followed in the exact order presented; however, it is important that they are completed. The order of the process steps just makes it more efficient for most IPB reviews. First, sort the DART spreadsheet by part number so that duplicate part numbers can be reviewed at the same time, keeping in mind not to disrupt or foul the defined indenture structure.

a. JEDMICS - Validate and annotate Part Number, Part Description, Cage Code, Units Per Assembly on the spreadsheet if found on the NHA drawing in JEDMICS. Load only the core part number into JEDMICS; for example, for the part number 232-97915-5 – only load 232-97915 into JEDMICS.

b. ASSIST Database - When utilizing the ASSIST Database, go to Quick Search (https://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch) and in the Document Number box, type in only the numbers for the core AN, MS, or NAS document (e.g. MS16562-231, type in ASSIST 16562), click on the Submit button. Scroll to find the document and select it. On the next page, scroll to the “Media” area and select the top document. Research core part number (MS24693-C2 – load only 24693 into ASSIST) and validate that AN, MS, or NAS type parts are still active in the ASSIST database. Annotate all finding(s) on the spreadsheet to show that the master document is still active, inactive, or cancelled.

NOTE: "AN" and most "MS" part numbers need to be converted to "NAS" part numbers. Some MS part numbers will need to be converted to SAE part numbers by the ES.

c. Data Warehouses - Research complete part numbers and annotate finding from Haystack, D043, or FEDLOG onto the spreadsheet. This should include part description, cage code, and NSN.

NOTE: Additional column headings can be added to the spreadsheet following the last DART column on the spreadsheet as appropriate and approved by the DCC. (e.g. JEDMICS Review, ASSIST Database, Comments, Figure and Part Index Issues, etc.)

11. Question: Have data from any engines or weapons systems been loaded into team center before? If so, which and what were the results?

Answer: 2008 proof of concept engines PLMS effort F101 engine data loaded only. F101 engine PLMS data has not been kept current as of 2008 and has approximately 100 Time compliance Technical Order updates to implement. PLMS F101 data is not being utilized currently due to configuration updates required. Other engines 2008 proof of concept PLMS effort data has not been loaded into PLMS.

12. Question: In regards to the RFI posted on FBO for FA8100-11-R-0010, please confirm that the task is being competed Full and Open as per Instructions to Offerors, Attachment 2, paragraph 6.3.4 – the FBO website still shows this as a Total Small Business Set Aside Answer: This requirement is a total small business set-a-side.

13. Question: Will the contractor currently performing the pilot program, Support Systems Associates, Inc. be allowed to bid on this solicitation?

Answer: Any company that meets the small business size standards is able to submit a proposal.

14. Question: Can the contractor locate a fully qualified, trained and supervised data entry staff in the contractor’s facility in another state? The contractor’s facility has the required infrastructure to accommodate the project requirements Answer: All worked to be conducted within 10 miles OC-ALC (please see PWS)

15. Question: Section 3.2.3 requires that the contractor be familiar with AF developed data cleansing processes. If these processes were developed as a result of the two part pilot program, how can any contractor except the one conducting the pilot be familiar with the processes?

Answer: Request contractor review attachment 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 that was part of PWS that answers this question.

16. Question: Will additional consideration be given to offers from 8(a) or HUBzone certified contractors?

Answer: No additional consideration will be given to 8(a) or HUBzone.

17. Queston: Is the NAICS/Size Standard expected to change?

Answer: The NAICS on the official solicitation will be what is used. It is not expected to change.

18. Question: Section 4.3 states that all software developed for this project will become the property of the Government. Does the Government anticipate any software development as a part of this effort?

Answer: Gvt does not anticipate any software development, however, should the contractor utilize a COTS product (Ms Excel) and incorporate business rules within that software for this requirment, USAF has rights to those business rules and/or logic.

19. Question: Will the government owned licenses of Teamcenter 2007 be available to the contractor for use?

Answer: PLMS has users license when contractor access PLMS.

20. Question: The attached PPT ("attachement 3: IPB Data Cleansing Process Flow") does not show where Teamcenter 2007 is used. At which step would TeamCenter 2007 be used? Was it used in previous in previous pilots and if so, at which step?

Answer: Attached 3 (ppt) is related to IPB cleansing and not related to PLMS. IPB cleansing and PLMS are two separate requirements. Pilots did not have PLMS requirements, IPB cleansing only. Attachment 3 or PPT. is for IPB cleansing only.

21. Question: Are all the mentioned IPB's that require cleansing paper documents that have to be cleaned?

Answer: Please revisit PWS which identifies .out file (HCT) from PCMS is the file to utilize for cleansing IPB’s. All IPB’s are loaded into PCMS in order for PCMS to process .out file (HCT). IPB’s loaded into PCMS are paper, PDF and digital files.

22. Question: What kind of data has been brought over to PLMS if any?

Answer: As of this response to this question no data has been brought over from any other system.

23. Question: 101,850 PLMS records, 995 commodities and 10 weapons systems have to be cleansed. Does the 101,850 number represent the figure for all of the "records" for all commodities, weapons systems and PLMS records?

Answer: PWS, page 7 & 8, section 2.1.3, note at the bottom of this section identifies number of records to cleanse. Also Contract Line Item Number 0001 of the solicitation identifies total number of records to be cleansed.

24. Question: PWS paragraph 3.0 states :

“The initial period of performance for the commodities IPB’s cleansing, verified and validated documented errors and recommended AFTO 252 changes, AFTO 22, and AF Form 3925 & AF Form 3927 when engineering drawings impacted by cleansing utilizing established IPB cleansing processes is 12 months.”

This is a change from the original RFI which stated a period of performance (PoP) of 21 months. Is this a typographical error or has the PoP officially changed?

Answer: Period of Performance will be 12 months.