Responses to Questions for SAM 5.15.20 204pm.pdf

Question Response Section B

Section B, Over & Above - Travel CLINs X003 Question: The statement that “All reimbursable travel costs shall be billed in accordance with Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR)” indicates this CLIN should be Cost Reimbursable. Could the government please confirm the contract type(s) for the Travel CLINs X003?

While travel costs are reimbursed, the Travel G&A rate is “fixed” and should include all applicable administrative expenses associated with travel and therefore the CLIN type is FFP for CLINs X003

Section B, Over & Above - Travel CLINs X003 Question: Please confirm the contractor shall bid the number of trips and locations that they believe are required to perform the PWS. If the answer is yes, under what CLIN should they be bid?

Offeror’s are not required to propose the number of trips and locations. Allowable travel costs will be reimbursed and the fixed travel G&A rate applied accordingly. Travel will be evaluated by applying the proposed fixed Travel G&A rate to the estimated travel dollars to calculate the extended price for each year.

CLIN 0006 and PWS 1.3 Question: In CLIN 0006, it lists the line item quantity as 26.5M but in Section 1.3 of the PWS it lists the line item quantity as 30.1M. Which amount is correct?

Quantity 30.1M is correct, CLIN 0006 has been changed to reflect the correct amount.

Section B, CLINs X001 and X002 Question: The best estimated quantity (BEQ) provided for CLINs X001 and X002 are a minimum and maximum range. Please clarify what estimated quantity per CLIN offerors should use for their pricing matrix and TEP.

The CLINs state Best Estimated Qty, Minimum Quantity, and Maximum Quantity and the minimum quantity field is blank. For the pricing matrix and TEP use the Best Estimated Quantity. For CLINs x0001 and x0002 they are both 600,000 EA.

SECTION I

"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 award, the contractor shall have a complete IT capability which has the ability to perform the requirements as stated in this PWS."

Question: Will the government allow the introduction of a new IT tool or require the current tool continue to be used?

The government is open to the use of any IT tool that meets the PWS requirements and can satisfactorily perform the live demonstration as outlined in Section M. 2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Live Demonstration of Tool Capabilities.

SECTION L

Section L, Page 53, Paragraph 2.3.3, Table 2.3 Question: Line 2 of the table says the technical volume is limited to 40 pages, line 8 says unlimited. Will the Government please clarify the total page count for the subfactors in the technical volume?

The Technical volume has a page limit of 40 pages. Within that page limit the offeror has discretion on the combination of pages they use to illustrate the technical approach to their proposal up to the 40 page limit.

Section L, Page 52, Paragraph 2.3.3 Question: The DRFP states "The attachments identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders, as necessary."

Does the Government want each attachment (i.e. Attach 2.0, Attach 1.1, Attach 1.4, etc.) to be bound separately from the volumes? Should the paragraph read, the volumes identified in the table

The attachments referred to in 2.3.3. are the volumes of the proposal.

It is the expectation of the government that the offerors will provide a volume for Technical, Past Performance, Price, and Contract Documentation as outlined in Table 2.3 Proposal Organization.

Section L, Page 53, Table 2.3 Question: Volume II, Paragraph 4.1 Past Performance Information Forms has an * in the page limit column. Can the government clarify what the * is in reference to?

References ITO Attachment 1.1 Past Performance Information Forms instructions which state, Request each offeror submit between 6 and 10 PPIS forms for the prime Contractor and between 4 and 7 for each significant subcontractor/teaming partner.

Section L, Page 57, Paragraph LTSF3.2 Documentation of Commitment Question: Offerors are to provide documentation regarding commitments for SB Partners. Suggest the Government remove these from the page limit of Volume I and let offerors provide as an attachment.

Small Business Participation is Subfactor 3 as identified in Volume 1 Technical It is appropriate that it be contained therein.

Government responses to industry questions for RFP FA8109-20-R-0002

Section L, Page 57, Live Demo “Offerors shall also be required to show their DMSMS predictive tool can display on the government provided computer screen all part attribute data fields listed in PWS Appendix B and Appendix C that were not already displayed in the twelve query results.”

Question: Suggest the Government add reference to PWS Appendix A requirements for the demonstration, to eliminate any Risk during execution.

The government believes the Live Demo criteria as structured in Section L will illustrate query results that indicate an offeror’s tool capability to properly indenture and categorize the sample data provided.

Section L, Page 61, 5.3.6 Question: “No profit or fee is allowed” is an indication of Cost Reimbursable CLIN type. Not allowing fee on FFP CLIN puts financial risk and burden on the contractor. Could the government please clarify if the Travel CLIN X003 should be cost reimbursable instead of FFP?

While travel costs are reimbursed, the Travel G&A rate is “fixed” and should include all applicable administrative expenses associated with travel. Although profit or fee applicable to travel costs are not allowed, profit or fee applicable to the Fixed Travel G&A expenses may be included. The government considers the risk for this CLIN to be minimal given that travel costs are fully reimbursed and then G&A is applied accordingly.

Section L, Page 64, List of Documents, Exhibits, or Attachments Table Question: The dates of these attachments are inconsistent with the actual date of attachments included in the draft solicitation. Please provide the latest versions of the attachments listed

Final Section L 6.3.5 Attachments to the Model Contract table will properly reflect the final list of Documents, Exhibits, and Attachments

Will the government consider the removal of the requirement to have the system available on Day One and perhaps accommodate time for configuration for an alternate COTS solution?

No the Government requires potential offerors to be able to perform contract requirements as outlined in the RFP at time of award.

SECTION M

Section M, Page 83, Live Demo

28. Contain 90% of the required part attribute data requested at the beginning of the live Demonstrations Question: With the technical evaluation being either acceptable or unacceptable, how will the Government be able to evaluate each offeror fairly if the total is below 100%?

The government believes 90% accuracy of the query results indicates an offeror’s tool is capable of properly indenturing and categorizing the sample data provided.

Section M, Page 83, Live Demo Live Demo Requirements Question: With a daily update and load of part information, the potential for a vendor to not have all the required data, BOM structure, etc. could create Risk for the USAF. We suggest that the demonstration require all part attribute data of the sample set to be populated accurately, for demonstration purposes, to mitigate this risk.

The government believes the Live Demo Requirements as structured in Section M will illustrate query results that indicate an offeror’s tool capability to properly indenture and categorize the sample data provided.

Section M, Pages 84-85 Question: The numbering is off in Section M pages 84-85 (skips from

2.3.2 to+B7 2.4.2.1). Please correct numbering for consistency purposes.

Numbering has been corrected to eliminate the discrepancy.

Section M, 2.2.3., Page 83 SB Evaluation, last paragraph:

“A prime contractor submitting an approved subcontracting plan under the “Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive SB Subcontracting Plans” in lieu of the SB Subcontracting Plan; however, the SB Participation goal must meet or exceed the minimum mandatory total SB goal of 7 percent even if the SB Subcontracting Plan goals are lower.”

Question: The sentence seems to be missing words and does not make sense, can the Government please clarify.

the section is revised to state: “A prime contractor may submit an approved subcontracting plan under the “Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive SB Subcontracting Plans” in lieu of the SB Subcontracting Plan; however, the SB Participation goal must meet or exceed the minimum mandatory total SB goal of 7 percent even if the SB Subcontracting Plan goals are lower.”

PWS

PWS, Page 13, Section 1.10.2 Travel – Over & Above Question: "The items set forth below are not included in the scope of the basic work items X001 and X002.” Could the government please clarify this statement?

1.10.2 Travel - Over and Above and the associated CLIN x003 support the other CLINs. The scope of the CLIN and any associated reimbursable travel costs and Fixed General & Administration (G&A) rates are separate from CLIN x001 and x002.

PWS Appendix B, Page 30, Item 32 Question: Item 32 in the list of Government Owned Part Attributes states the RoHS attribute is Government owned, this information is only provided by the Original Component Manufacturer (OCM). Recommend this attribute be removed from Appendix B since it is already part of Appendix C.

The RoHS attribute is part of Appendix B in the current contract and is part of the Government owned parts attributes and Appendix B deliverable.

PWS Appendix C Contractor Supplied Part Data Question: It appears that items 12,13,14, & 15 contain multiple part attributes. Recommend splitting them out as follows and then renumber the remaining part attributes.

12 NRND

13 Part Number Description 14 Function 15 Technology 16 Class 17 Family 18 Type 19 Group 20 Org (Organization) 21 Capacity 22 Program 23 Category 24 Generic Package Pin Alternates 25 Generic Alternates

Government concurs with the recommendation and will incorporate the input into the PWS

PWS Appendix C, Page 31, Contractor Supplied Part Data Question: It appears that Item 4 Manufacturer Part Number ROHS Status and Item 26 Environmental Status are referring to the same attribute. If this is the case, recommend removing the Environmental Status attribute item.

Government concurs with removing the Environmental Status attribute and will incorporate the input into the PWS

Pricing Matrix Attachment 3 Pricing Matrix, Note on CLIN X003 Question: The note "CLINs x003 should be entered as 1 plus the percentage amount. For example 8.25% should be entered as 1.0825" is unclear. Could the government please clarify the expectations for pricing the Travel CLINs X003?

As stated in the Pricing Matrix “CLINs x003 should be entered as 1 plus the percentage amount. For example 8.25% should be entered as 1.0825” The evaluation quantity is based on estimated travel dollars and the proposed rate is applied to calculate the extended total. For example: The estimated travel dollars for the Base Year in the Pricing Matrix is $30,000 to calculate the extended price the example proposed rate of 1.0825 is multiplied by $30,000 and equals $32,475.

The extended totals for each year are added together to determine the total CLIN amount for evaluation purposes.

Other Section J List of Attachments, Page 42 Question: The Draft PWS listed in Section J list of attachments shows a date of 30APR2020, however the Draft PWS included with the draft solicitation is dated July 2019. Will the Government provide the latest PWS before the final RFP is released.

The most recent PWS will be provided that incorporates all input from the Draft RFP process.

All Questions clean