Inquiry_and_Comment_Tracker_Revised_18_Jul_14.pdf

Reference Inquiry or Comment

1 PWS Section 1.3 states (in part): "Flat files will contain approximately 21 million line items populated with Government owned part attribute data listed in APPENDIX B. The Flat file will have no structured relationship and no linkage between records." However, APPENDIX B lists data attributes 31 and 32 to be NHA Part Number and NHA CAGE, respectfully. This is a conflict as NHA PN and CAGE provides the structure relationship and linkage between records.

Recommendation: We suggest that these two attributes be removed from PWS APPENDIX B, Government Supplied Data.

Government Response: The Government shall remove the sentence: "The Flat file will have no structured relationship and no linkage between records" but will not remove any attributes.

2 Regarding the "Live Demonstration" there appears to be a conflict within Sections L and between Section M of the draft RFP.

Section L (INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS), Section 2.2.5, Live Demonstration, states

(in part): "... At the beginning of the live demonstration, the Government will provide the offeror a list of attributes extracted from Appendix A, Section 4.1 through 4.1.16, of the PWS. The offeror shall produce reports which display data as described in Appendix A of the PWS. Offerors shall login to their DMSMS predictive tool, perform live queries and download the reports to a Government provided CD for future evaluation." Section

L, (INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS), Factor 1 – Technical, Section 3.2.4, Subfactor Two:

Live Demonstration of Tool Capabilities states (in part): “…Contain all applicable data attribute fields as described in PWS Appendix A, Section

4.2 through Section 6.1.3."

Section M (EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD), Section 2.2.2, (Subfactor Two: Live Demonstration of Tool Capabilities), states (in part): "

As a minimum, the individual query results/reports shall: ... Contain all applicable data attribute fields as described in PWS Appendix A, Section 4.2 through Section 6.1.3." While the query results would contain applicable data attribute fields as described in PWS Appendix A, Section 4.2 through

Section 4.2.8, Appendix A, Section 5.0 through Section 6.1.3 addresses tool reporting requirements that are not associated with the querying requirements of Section 4.1 through Section 4.1.16.

Recommendation: We suggest that Section M, Section 2.2.2, (Subfactor Two: Live Demonstration of Tool Capabilities) be revised to read: "...

Contain all applicable data attribute fields as described in PWS Appendix A, Section 4.1 through Section 6.1.3."

While this will clearly demonstrate a tool's querying ability, in order to properly evaluate the full capability of offerors' tools against the PWS requirements, we would suggest the Government provide a greater sampling of PWS Appendix A requirements at the beginning of the Live

Demonstrations. PWS Appendix A contains 109 specific tools requirements (including the 16 query attributes listed in Section 4.1 through 4.1.16).

Recommendation: We suggest the Government randomly select 25-30 additional tool requirements from Appendix A (Section 1 through Section 6) for offerors to demonstrate, and provide a listing of those to offerors at the beginning of the live demonstration. With this approach, offerors would be required to clearly demonstrate how their proposed tool meets the Government's broad software functionality requirements of PWS Appendix A, rather than just the querying capability. We feel this would provide a much better comparison of the respective tools and could easily be accomplished within the 3 hours each offeror is allotted for the demonstration.

Government Response: No change required.

Government Response: (Revised 18 Jul 14) After face-to-face discussion with the contractor the government relayed this acquisition would require a live demonstration of the potential offerers tool capabilities. The government will proceed as outlined in section "M"; no change required.

3 Should travel be CR no fee vs. FFP?

Government Response: The Government has stated the conditions and quantity for travel within the PWS and believes the offeror can propose a firm fixed price for travel.

4 What is the Government's intent of FAR 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages--Supplies, Services or Research and Development? How does the

Government anticipate applying LDs?

Government Response: The clause at 52.211-11 shall be removed.

5 Why pay several times for digitizing Technical Orders? This seems like a waste of taxpayer funds. There are several contracts the AF has let to do the same thing. PCMS data is the most up to date IPB data why not use it and save the AF money in these tough economic times. [Contractor} has a very large customer base so we get a great view of the AF and what is spent on certain projects.

Government Response: There is no requirement in the current PWS to digitize Technical Orders (TOs). All but a very small number of TOs that would even be considered for loading into a DMSMS tool are electronic and can be provided to the contractor electronically. Because of the fact there are several contracts for the data cleansing of TOs (PCMS) as well as many previous contracts for the same thing, the quality of the data has suffered and the format of the PCMS data is very time consuming.

This is an excerpt of an official Air Force Audit of a previously awarded DMSMS tool contract at Robins AFB.; “Specifically, personnel did not establish adequate contract requirements and ultimately had to reduce the scope of work. To explain, while personnel planned for an automated process to transfer PCMS data files into the contractor’s tool, the Air Force could not provide the data in a format as prescribed in the contract.

Accordingly, the contractor had to implement a time-consuming manual process to reformat the data files into a useable format prior to transferring the data into their DMSMS tool.

The data that the AF already owns can either be provided in an indentured file or a flat file the later save the AF a lot of work and is safer installed on a commercial server. Who it to say this data is not hacked on a commercial server if it is in the indentured form, this would be a national security issue. Why take the chance to do this when a flat file would be just as good for what the users are telling us they need. We surely do not want to go down the path that we did last time to find out someone really didn't have an approved C&A but a Denial of Authority to Connect to the Air Force

GIG. Which by all means you we knew and so did GUMD. Only [Contractor] had the only approved Authority to Connect to the Air Force GIG but you did not follow your own requirements which stated if you do not have a C&A ATC to the AF GIG you will be denied or should I say not considered for the contract.

Government Response: Government owned BOM data from the incumbent’s DMSMS tool will be provided as a flat file. The Government provided a flat file of sample data with the DRAFT RFP. Any newly loaded BOM data will be from Government owned TOs and Government owned drawings. This requirement, as in the past, requires the contractor to have a signed Authority to Operate (ATO).

Government Response: (Revised 18 Jul 14) Government owned BOM data from the incumbent’s DMSMS tool will be provided as a flat file.

The Government provided a flat file of sample data with the DRAFT RFP. Any newly loaded BOM data will be from Government owned TOs and

Government owned drawings. This requirement requires the contractor to have a signed Authority to Operate (ATO). Access to Air Force Network is not required to perform requirements outlined in the PWS, no changes required.

7 Can you explain why these requirements below are not part of standard feature list that most DMSMS users demand, yet are not part of the PWS

Tool Requirements? Monthly upload of DLA data (SOH, demand rates, price, procurement lead times)?

Government Response: Other DoD data systems are available for users to obtain DLA data (SOH, demand rates, price, and procurement lead times) if required. Requiring the data fields in the predictive tool would be a duplication of effort. Current PWS will not be changed to add:

“Monthly upload of DLA data (SOH, demand rates, price, and procurement lead times)”.

8 How are these services currently being performed? Under contract? In-house?

Government Response: Under Contract

9 If these requirements are currently being performed under a contract, Who is the Contractor? What is the contract number?

Government Response: BAE Systems

Government Response: (Revised 18 Jul 14) BAE Systems, FA8109-13-D-0001

10 Is there an estimated value range for this requirement?

Government Response: The Government has decided not to release the estimated value.

11 Is there a projected date for the release of a pre-solicitation notice or an RFP?

Government Response: There is not an estimated date to release the synopsis or the RFP. If interested, please set up an automatic notification in federal business opportunities.

12 Admin error to Page 50 of 85 to the revised draft RFT to your attention, specifically, Table 2.3. Proposal Organization, Volume 1, ITO paragraphs

2.2.1 and 2.2.2. Since the page limit for the Technical Volume has been reduced to 40, assume the Government intended to change the notation within the table associated with ITO paragraph numbers 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 to (Not included in 40 page limit). The statements still currently say (Not included in 50 page limit).

Government Response: This should read "40".

13 Section M, Paragraph 2.1.3 (Evaluation Methodology) appears to have placeholders inadvertently left within the text: "Technical Risk will be evaluated against Subfactors X and X as described in para. 2.3. below." Per Paragraph 2.3, this should instead read "...Subfactors 2 and 3..."

Government Response: The Government concurs with change. The first two sentences of second paragraph of section 2.1.3 should read "The technical proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2. Technical Risk will be evaluated against Subfactors 2 and 3 as described in para. 2.3. below."

Section M, Paragraph 2.3 (Factor 2 - Technical Risk) states, in part: "Technical subfactors 2, and 3 will be evaluated for technical risk and will receive a single risk rating for the two subfactors combined. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement."

Question: In the Government's evaluation of technical risk as it applies to Technical Subfactor 2, Live Demonstration of Tool Capabilities, will technical risk be assessed solely on the functionality demonstrated by offerors during the live demonstration or against the tools capability to perform the entire list of requirements in PWS Appendix A, Tool Requirements Matrix? Also, please confirm that the offerors' assessment of risk, as it relates to Subfactor 2, should be provided within the Technical Volume and not addressed as part of the Live Demonstration.

Government Response: Subfactor 2 technical risks will be assessed on the tools ability to:

1) Run queries from a single logon point

2) Produce requested data fields

3) Populate the data fields with applicable data

4) Produce all the records contained in the database that are applicable to the requested queries

The offeror’s assessment of risk for Subfactors 2 shall be provided within the Technical Volume. The offers assessment of Subfactor 3 risk shall also be provided within the Technical Volume.

Section L, Paragraph 3.2.7 (Factor 2 - Technical Risk) states, in part: "The offeror shall provide the rationale for each risk, including quantitative estimates of the impacts on cost, schedule, and performance."

Question: Would the Government consider revising the wording to allow offerors to provide qualitative estimates rather than quantitative?

Quantitative estimates would be subjective and could vary greatly based on assumptions made by the respective offerors. A qualitative assessment along the lines of "minor", "moderate", or "major" would seem more appropriate for proposal purposes.

Government Response: Section L, Paragraph 3.2.7 shall not be changed.

Government Response: (Revised 18 Jul 14) Government is requiring vendor to identify risk based on dollar, time lost, impact values to reduce additional research requirements; no change required for Section L, Paragraph 3.2.7.

Section M, Paragraph 2.2.4 (Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation), Table M-1, on the row labeled "(D) Small", the percentages listed for a

Category Score of 4 are "14.50% - 29.99%".

Question: It appears this should instead be "14.50% - 19.99%". Please clarify.

Government Response: The Government concurs. It should read "14.50% - 19.99%"

17 “(E) Small Disadvantaged Business”, the percentages listed for a Category Score of 4 are "6.00% - 6.49%".

Question: It appears this should instead be "5.50% - 6.49%". Please clarify.

Government Response: The Government concurs. It should read "5.50% - 6.49%"

Section L, Paragraph 3.2.6 (Subfactor Four: Small Business Participation Information), states (in part): "Prepare and submit one Small Business

Participation Plan in the format as outlined in below." In the instructions that follow, Item B-1 states: " Total contract value =A. This value should include all options, etc. and match the TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE you have proposed in your price proposal volume." However, Section L, Paragraph 5.2 (General Instructions) explicitly states: “All information relating to the proposed price including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Price Volume. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal."

Question: Please clarify whether the total contract value should be included in the Small Business Participation Plan provided within Volume 1, Technical.

Government Response: The last sentence should read "Other than the Small Business Participation Plan, under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal."

In accordance with the prior protest, the government has acquired data rights to some of the data. The PWS indicates that the contractor is to augment the government's data with some of their data. However, the PWS or RFP is not clear on the government's ownership to this additional data.

We suggest the government specify that all data entered into the solution during the course of the contract shall be provided at contract close. This should also include metadata to facilitate the loading of the data into another tool if required.

Government Response: The Government has unlimited rights to the data in Appendix B (only) of the PWS. The Government does not have unlimited rights to the data in Appendix C of the PWS. The Government will not be requesting ownership of data beyond what is listed in Appendix

B.

The amount of contractor provided additional data (Appendix C) to be instantiated in a 90 day period appears to bias the RFP and PWS to the incumbent. We would suggest that the government prioritize the parts to be fully indentured with Appendix C attributes and time phase the information over the course of 6-9 Months with a provision for a 3 day turn on critical parts analysis requests. While the Draft PWS provisions for staff to add new data and sustain the existing data, we will have to front-load the contract with additional resources to support the conversion and augmentation of the data. As a result, this could also skew cost to bias an evaluation toward the incumbent. Training the 500 ALC and external users on the new tool could pose a risk. The government does not specify how the training should be delivered to meeting the needs of the user community. Additionally, the government requires the training to occur at contract start. We would suggest delaying training until after the 90 day conversion of the prioritized data and classroom training supported by CBTs and DCO events for follow-up training.

Government Response: The Government must be diligent when dealing with obsolescence issues that affect the sustainability of Air and Space

Vehicle. 90 Days is the longest the Government weapon system managers can be without the support of a DMSMS tool. The requirement for the

DMSMS tool to be available in 90 Days will remain as currently written in the PWS.

In order to allow users access to the tool within 90 days from contract award, they must know how to use it. Waiting until after the required 90 days would just add to the time the tool was unavailable for use.

Regarding the risk for training the 500 ALC and external personnel, the Government has stated in the Instructions To Offerors, Section L, and paragraph 3.2.5, A detailed approach for the accomplishment of requirements in PWS Section 1.3 through 1.3.5. As a minimum, the offeror's approach shall include details of how:

a) The approximately 21 million line items provided by the Government will be imported, linked, populated with PWS Appendix C data and made available to Air Force users in 90 days.

b) Loading of new lines of data and Updating of line item data will be accomplished.

c) The Tool/Tools Authority to Operate will be kept current.

d) Tool Database Training will be accomplished.

Based on the contractors approach, the Government shall evaluate the proposal in accordance with the Evaluation Factors, Section M.