Inquiry_and_Comment_Tracker_Revised_22_Aug_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).

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.

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.

Submitted /Responded during Pre-proposal conference

21 Are large business offerors expected to attach a complete copy of their Small Business Subcontracting Plan as part of their response to

Subfactor 4, as seems to be indicated by Paragraph 3.2.2? If so, please confirm that this corporate plan is not included in the 40 page limit.RFP Reference: Section L, Paragraph 3.2.2, Item h); Page 59 of 89

Comment: Section L - Instructions to Offerors (ITO), Paragraph 3.2.2 - Volume Organization, Item H - Subfactor Four, Small Business

Participation Plan, states: "Note, offeror’s that are considered a large business by the applicable NAICS must also submit a small business subcontracting plan in addition to the small business participation plan."

Government Response: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not part of the response to subfactor 4 and is not included in the 40 page limit.

22 How many on site personnel can the government support at each of the following locations, Hill AFB, Tinker AFB and Robins AFB?

RFP Reference: PWS Section 3.5 Location/Office Space; Page 11

Comment: PWS Section 3.5 - Location/Office Space, states, in part: "Day to day efforts shall be performed onsite at Hill AFB, Tinker

AFB and Robins AFB during normal working hours (0730-1630). For contractor onsite support personnel, the Government shall furnish office space, desk, chair, file cabinet, telephone, e-mail, and internet access."

Government Response: It is the government’s intent to allow each offeror the opportunity to propose the number of onsite support personnel the offeror needs to perform this requirement

23 What will be included in the tradeoff?

RFP Reference: Section M, Para 1.1, Basis for Contract Award; Page 79 of 89

Comment: Paragraph 1.1 states “This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.” The next sentence states the tradeoff will be made only between past performance and price.

Government Response: In 2011, the Department of Defense standardized source selection procedures utilizing “Tradeoff” and

“Lowest Price Technically Acceptable” source selections. For this acquisition, the Government will consider technical as “acceptable” or “unacceptable” and will only trade past performance for price.

24 Is this a best value or PPT award?

RFP Reference: Section L, Paragraph 1.1.2 Page 53 of 89; Section M, Para 1.1, Basis for Contract Award; Page 79 of 89

Comment: Paragraph 1.1.2 states, Award will be made on the basis of “best value” …..Paragraph 1.1 states this is a “best value” award however the process description that follows describes a Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) process.

Government Response: In 2011, the Department of Defense standardized source selection procedures utilizing “Tradeoff” and

“Lowest Price Technically Acceptable” source selections. The “Performance Price Tradeoff” source selection method is no longer a selection method; however the methodology may still be used within the “Tradeoff” source selection. For this acquisition, the

Government will consider technical as “acceptable” or “unacceptable” and will only trade past performance for price.

25 It appears the top rating of “Substantial Confidence” was inadvertently removed from the table 5 in paragraph 2.3.1. Recommend revising table to include the “Substantial Confidence” rating as provided in the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

Section M, Para 2.3, Factor 3 – Past Performance; Page 83 of 89 and para 2.3.1 – Ratings; Page 83 & 84 of 89.

Comment: Paragraph 2.3 references past performance confidence assessments described in the Department of Defense (DoD) Source

Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.3, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments which shows 5 confidence ratings. Paragraph

2.3.1, Table 5 includes only 4 confidence ratings.

Government Response: “Substantial Confidence” was not inadvertently removed from table 5. While past performance is significantly more important than price, the Government is more concerned with “Satisfactory Confidence” compared to the other confidence ratings.

26 Was it the intent of the government to omit this file and accompanying sample data from the final RFP? Also, please confirm that the sample data file provided in the draft RFP is identical to the sample data file in the final RFP.

RFP Reference: Sample Data File Provided for Live Demonstration

Comment: In reference to the sample data provided for the live demonstration, it is noted that there was a text file in the draft version of the RFP with the file name Sample_Data_Hybrids.txt that is not included in final version of the RFP.

Government Response: It was the government’s intent to omit, “Sample_Data_Hybrids.txt” from the RFP. It was also the government’s intent to omit the, “Sample_Data_Hybrids.txt” from the draft RFP but was mistakenly included in the draft RFP data.

27 If this is a requirement to be met in the PWS, suggest that PWS Section 1.3, paragraphs 5 and 6 (as shown below) be revised to incorporate items in Green. PWS, Appendix A: Tool Requirements Matrix; Page 15

Comment: The PWS contains an Appendix A titled "Tool Requirements Matrix." However, no reference is made to Appendix A within the sections of the PWS.

The contractor shall provide the necessary capabilities required to support the 448 Supply Chain Management Wing (SCMW) obsolescence management initiatives as described in this PWS. The contractor’s Tool shall meet all requirements of this PWS and

Appendix A at time of proposal. The contractor shall also provide engineering, technical and program support services for the effort.

The requirements detailed below will be broken out by specific AFSC requirements, as applicable.

This requirement is considered Sustainment and does not allow for development or modernization of a contractor’s IT capability. This requirement does not allow for the Government purchase of software modifications or software enhancements. This requirement does not allow for the Government purchase of computer hardware. At time of proposal, the contractor shall have a complete IT capability which has the ability to perform the requirements as stated in this PWS and Appendix A.

Government Response: Appendix A Is part of the PWS so there is no reason to single it out on its own. It is important to understand that the statement, “as stated in this PWS” means, the ENTIRE PWS.

28 Is it the intent of the government that offerors not respond to PWS sections 1.3.6 through 1.3.10? Otherwise, suggest that Paragraph

3.2.5 be revised to read, "... shall provide a detailed approach for the accomplishment of requirements in PWS Sections 1.3 through

1.3.10."

RFP Reference: Section L, Paragraph 3.2.5 - Subfactor Three: Contractor Requirements; Page 59 of 89

Comment: Paragraph 3.2.5 states, in part, "The Offeror shall provide an approach for the accomplishment of Contractor Requirements.

The approach shall provide a detailed approach for the accomplishment of requirements in PWS Sections 1.3 through 1.3.5.“

Government Response: The government has determined providing a detailed approach for the accomplishment of requirements in

PWS Sections 1.3 through 1.3.5. is sufficient for evaluating Subfactor 3.

29 DID reference for CDRL A007 DoD Architecture Framework Documentation should be corrected to DI-MGMT-81644A.

RFP Reference: RFP Part I, Section B, CLIN X004 Data, Data Requirements Tables (Pages 8, 15, and 21 of 89).

Government Response: The Government concurs. DID reference for CDRL A007 for CLIN 0004, 1004, and 2004 should be DI-

MGMT-81644A.

30 Does the government require submission of this Attachment? If so please specify where the worksheet should be included in the proposal and if it is to be included in page count. Comment: RFP does not appear to require submission of the completed worksheet with proposal responses.

RFP Reference: RFP Part III, Section J, Small Business Participation Plan.xls Small Business Participation Plan Worksheet (Page 44 of

89).

Government Response: The Government does not require the Small Business Participation Plan Worksheet to be submitted. The worksheet was provided to assist with clarity and transparency in regards to the Government calculations. However, the government does require the Small Business Participation Plan IAW section L, Instruction to Offerors.

31 There is no Paragraph numbered 5.3.1, can the government please clarify what paragraph number they are referring to in this sentence?

RFP Reference: Section L, Paragraph 4.3.1; Page 63 of 89.

Comment: Paragraph 4.3.1 states “The target of eight pages for PPIS does not include the allowable five pages for ITO paragraph number 5.3.1, Relevant Contract Narrative.

Government Response: ITO paragraph number 5.3.1 will be changed.

32 Can the Government please re-align the Table 2.3 ITO paragraph numbers with the correct Section L numbers?

RFP Reference: Section L, Table 2.3 Proposal Organization; Page 56 of 89.

Comment: Table 2.3 references ITO paragraph numbers in the 2nd column. The numbers referenced don’t match up to the paragraph numbers in Section L.

Government Response: Table 2.3 Proposal Organization; will be re-aligned and reposted.

33 Is the satisfactory confidence rating the minimum awardable rating?

RFP Reference: Section M, Paragraph 2.3.1; Page 84 of 89.

Comment: Note with Table 5 Performance Confidence Assessments, states…”all offerors rated as “Satisfactory Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance Factor.”

Government Response: The “Satisfactory Confidence” is the maximum rating. The Government reserves the right to make a best value or tradeoff decision within any of the confidence ratings in Table 5.

34 It appears the top rating of Very Relevant” was inadvertently removed from the table 4 in paragraph 2.3.2.2. Recommend revising table to include the “Very Relevant” rating as provided in the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

Section M, Para 2.3, Factor 3 – Past Performance; Page 83 of 89 and para 2.3.2.2 – Ratings; Page 84 of 89.

Comment: Paragraph 2.3.2.2 references past performance relevancy assessments described in the Department of Defense (DoD) Source

Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1 Table 4 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings which shows 4 relevancy ratings. Paragraph

2.3.2.2 Table 4 includes only 3 confidence ratings.

Government Response: The rating of “Very Relevant” was not inadvertently removed. The Department of Defense Source Selection

Procedures limits and defines 4 relevancy ratings; however, the Source Selection Authority may elect not to use all of the relevancy ratings. The Government shall consider all offerors rated relevant as equal.

35 It appears the two top ratings Exceptional (Purple) and Very Good (Blue) were inadvertently removed from the table in paragraph

2.3.2.3. Recommend revising table to include the “Exceptional and Very Good” ratings.

RFP Reference: Section M, para 2.3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment; Page 85 of 89.

Comment: Paragraph 2.3.2.2 includes only 3 Quality Assessment ratings in the table with highest achievable rating being Satisfactory

(Green).

Government Response: The ratings of Exceptional (Purple) and Very Good (Blue) were not inadvertently removed. The Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures limits and defines 5 performance quality ratings; however, the Source Selection Authority may elect not to use all of the performance quality ratings. The Government shall consider all offerors rated satisfactory as equal.

36 Is the incumbent's "Tool" a COTS product?

Government Response: The incumbents “Tool” is contractor owned and contractor managed. The Government is under contract for a noncommercial service and does not believe it is prudent to elaborate on another contractor’s product.

37 Why are the challenges with the incumbent's "Tool" that are necessitating another procurement cycle?

Government Response: The government is not aware of any challenges with the incumbents “Tool” however, it is the government’s policy to continually seek competition where possible.

38 How many BOMs need to be entered into the tool within the first 90 days?

Government Response: The government does not stipulate the number of BOMs to be loaded into the offeror’s tool. The government is providing an extract from the PWS as an answer to what is required to be loaded into the offeror’s tool within the first 90 days:

1.3 Contractor Requirements

At the beginning of this effort, the contractor will be provided the AF indentured parts data in a flat file format on Computer Disks

(CDs). Flat files will contain approximately 21 million line items populated with Government owned part attribute data listed in

APPENDIX B. Contractor shall import all Government owned part attribute data into their Tool and link as required by this PWS. In addition to the Government owned part attribute data, the contractor shall populate the same 21 million line items with the contractor supplied part attribute data listed in APPENDIX C. Contractor shall have all part attribute data populated, appropriately linked and made available for use to all AF users within 90 calendar days after contract award.

39 Given the long procurement history of this requirement, is it prudent for new offerors to assume that this requirement will be equitably reviewed and awarded by Dec, 2014 as acquiesced in the RFP? Or, is it likely to be sole sourced to the incumbent as was done previously?

Government Response: The RFP stated that offerors hold their prices for 120 days from response date. The government is committed to performing an unbiased evaluation of each offeror’s proposal and award the contract by December 2014.

40 Why is the status of the incumbent's "Tool"?

Government Response: The Government is currently contracting with BAE Systems, and BAE’s “Tool” is currently operating within the guidelines of the governments requirements.

41 I still cannot find where in the documents you sent me that states if you have an ATO you can connect to the AFIN, the DIACAP processes have not changed. Could you please reference the page and paragraph? Thanks

Government Response: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 10:23 AM you [contractor] asked the question, "If you only have an ATO then how is it you can connect to the AF GIG?" The DMSMS tool Performance Work Statement posted to FedBizOpps at the time of your

[contractor] question did not state you can connect to the AF GIG/AFIN with only an ATO. Please review the PWS for this acquisition, FA810914R0001, for ATO requirements.

Tuesday, August 05, 2014 7:21 PM you [contractor] stated, "I spoke to an IA person at Robins today and he [unnamed] was not too happy about the ATO issue." I [Government] was still not clear on what the ATO issue was, so I [Government] sent you the documents

[AFI 33-210.pdf and IT Lean Reengineering Process Guidebook.pdf] in case you [contractor]were having trouble with your [contractor]

ATO. The documents were not to point out where it states, "If you only have a ATO then how is it you can connect to the AF GIG?"

The Government has an obligation to protect FOUO data and must protect it as such. The requirement to be connected to the AF

GIG/AFIN is an AFNIC decision and is made at the time the ATO is signed. AFNIC is the subject matter experts and are the only ones with the authority to make AF GIG/AFIN connection decisions.

Once again, our DMSMS tool PWS that is posted to FedBizOpps does not state, "if you have an ATO you can connect to the AFIN".

Please reference in the current RFP FA8109R140001 where you [contractor] are reading this statement, so I [Government] can review it.

In reference to [contractor] concerns regarding travel to attend the preproposal conference, the Government provided a "call-in" number as part of the RFP amendment 1, clause at 5352.215-9001, Notice of Pre-Bid/Pre-Proposal Conference.

42 RFP Reference: Section L, Subfactor 4; E. Extent of Commitment, Page 61of 89.

Comment: the RFP states. provide documentation regarding signed commitments for this effort including teaming agreements. Copies of such agreements shall be provided...

Question/Recommendation: If teaming agreements are required as a part of the Small Business Participation Plan, can they be included as an attachment to Volume I and not be included in the 40 page limit for the volume?

Government Response: 22 Aug 14. Offerors can include the teaming arrangement as an attachment to Volume I (and not count towards the 40-page limit).