FA8126-16-R-0002__Question_and_Answer__8th_Round_(FINAL).pdf

FA8126-16-R-0002

Enterprise Interface Test Adapters and Related Test Equipment

Question and Answer Document

1) Question: Per Page 198 of 202 of the Solicitation, it states: “The offeror must possess, or acquire prior to award of a contract, a facility clearance equal to the highest classification stated on the Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254) attached to this solicitation.” Does this requirement need resolution at the IDIQ Award Level or would this come into action once the IDIQ Level Awards are made?

Government Response: All requirements of the solicitation must be met in order to be considered for award of basic contract.

2) Question: Are there any distributable materials from the pre-sol conference that could be sent to us?

Government Response: The Government will release Interface Test Adapter Photos and a list of the companies that attended the presolicitation conference.

3) Question: The list of applicable documents includes OC-ALC-TPSD-ITAPRS-001 Product

Requirements Specification for Interface Test Adapters*and it states that we should request this document from the contract officer. Can you please provide us with this document?

Government Response: The Government has provided the OC-ALC-TPSD-ITAPRS-01

Product Requirements Specification for Interface Test Adapters as an attachment in FBO.

4) Question: SOW para 2.2.1 b. Quality Requirements “…must possess an ISO 9001:2008 certificate.. IAW SOW 3.1.12..” This paragraph references data rights. We believe it should reference 3.1.13. Please confirm the SOW 2.2.1b Quality Requirements.

Government Response: Solicitation amendment 0002 corrects this administrative oversight.

5) Question: Where is the government’s definition for high, medium, and low complexity for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN)? Please explain what RFP data is to be used to develop the cost estimates for the high, medium, and low complexity for each CLIN.

Government's Response: Attachments 2 and 2a captures the highest complexity the

Government anticipates for this acquisition. The Government is requesting offerors propose

100% at the highest complexity. The low and medium complexities will automatically populate from this information based upon a Government percentage.

6) Question: What is the deadline for submitting questions about the solicitation by which the government will provide answers?

Government Response: The Government will address questions regarding the solicitation until

2:00pm, CST 17 June 2016.

7) Question: Are there any opportunities for subcontracting with small businesses for this requirement?

Government Response: Information will be posted from the presolicitation conference, to include an attendee list. You may refer to this list and contact the companies directly to gauge interest in subcontracting opportunities.

8) Question: The GFI Minimum for ITA Design contains no wire list. Please explain what is expected from an ITA design package without a wire list. This is inconsistent with the requirements to be submitted for PDR.

Government Response: The Government provided a Sample Delivery Order that contains the

GFI minimum for pricing purposes. If the Sample Delivery Order were being awarded, then the full GFI would be provided per the SOW after award.

9) Question: CDRL A008 TM86-01 Table I identifies the requirement for new Calibration

Procedures TO and TCTO's which is not discussed in the SOW. Please clarify this requirement.

Government Response: CDRL A008 TM86-01 Table is provided as a reference document for

CDRL A008. The Calibration TOs and TCTOs are outside the scope of the SOW and will not be part of the contract.

10) Question: Attachment 3: Instructions to Offerors and Attachment 4: Evaluation Factors:

a. Attachment 3, Sub factor Two para 3.2.4.a Design Development, third bullet reads “…the assumptions and risks associated with …GFI minimum for an ITA (SOW 3.2.2.1)..” The referenced SOW para is Support Equipment Marking and Labeling. Is the correct SOW para reference 3.1.2.1? Attachment 3, para 3.2.4.a and Attachment 4 para 2.2.2.a Design

Development, 4th bullet Government Directed Changes references SOW 3.1.9. Contract

Monitor. Is the correct SOW reference 3.1.10?

11) Question: The Statement of Work, para 3.1.13, has a Certification requirement for the

Contractor to be certified to ISO 9001:2008 or an equivalent standard. Our company was previously certified to the ISO9001:2008 standard, however we are not currently certified to the standard. Our QMS follows the same processes and procedures required by the ISO standard and we were recently audited by our local DCMA QAR. The findings noted during the DCMA audit have been corrected and we expect to receive a follow-up audit within the next 30 days to confirm the adequacy of our corrective actions. After the follow-up audit, we expect to receive a notice from DCMA confirming our QMS as being compliant to the ISO standard. Will the

DCMA notice be acceptable for evaluation purposes for the solicitation?

Government Response: In accordance with FAR 52.212-1 Addendum paragraph 3.2.3b the offeror shall provide proof of ISO 9001:2008 certification or equivalent. If the offeror submits a certification which is not ISO 9001:2008, the offeror shall provide justification of how the certification is equivalent to ISO 9001:2008 standards, and the Government will evaluate the offeror’s justification.

12) Question: Attachment 2 Enterprise ITA and Related Test Equipment Sample Delivery

Order SOW, Section 2. Applicable documents for this Delivery Order SOW states “The following documents are applicable to this SOW to the extent specified. If not specified, the document is applicable in its entirety.” Does this mean, for instance that all sections of MIL-

STD-810G are applicable. The documents listed are large and contain many differing requirements. Normal practice is to list the applicable documents and “ … is applicable as specified herein”

Government Response: The table provided in the Basic SOW and Sample Delivery Order

SOW is inclusive of potential applicable standards for the enterprise. Each Delivery Order SOW will identify the applicable documents for that delivery order.

13) Question: Table 2.3 of attachment 3, Volume IV ITO paragraph references do not match.

Can you please verify references within the SOW?

14) Question: The solicitation indicates that design changes of less than 49 will be handled internally by the government. Does this mean that the government will also handle changes to the TDP?

Government Response: Government Directed Changes and Updated Technical Data Packages are two different types of work that are priced separately.

15) Question: The attachment references is Attachment 2 Sample DO are not accurate. For example, Reference to GFI list in Attachment 3. Attachment 3 is Section L. Can you please revise the references to ensure that the contractor fully understands the requirements?

16) Question: Attachment 2 Paragraph 3.1.4 states “For this DO, the Government will provide access to actual UUTs for mechanical design and form/fit at Government facility.” Does this mean that the contractor is expected to travel to OO-ALC, OC-ALC or WR-ALC for this access to bid the proposal?

Government Response: The sample Delivery Order is provided for pricing purposes only. The necessity of traveling to a Government facility to take Unit Under Test (UUT) measurements is representative of what could be encountered in an actual Delivery Order.

17) Question: Since you are requiring the contractor to input our pricing in the highest completed block in the pricing matrix, should we assume that we will not be given any task with greater complexity or duration than this?

Government Response: In accordance with the instructions for the pricing matrix, the highest complexity will establish the Not to Exceed (NTE) price for that particular CLIN.

18) Question: For the Past Performance, when using PP from and IDIQ contract, can DOs be combined when showing like items?

Government Response: The Government’s intent is for offerors to have a full opportunity to completely describe their relevancy in relation to this contract. Offeror’s can combine DOs, if needed.

19) Question: Attachment 2, paragraph 3.1.9 Government Directed Changes states:

“The Contractor shall incorporate a range of Government-directed design changes into a TDP being developed under 3.2 prior to acceptance. The Government will provide these changes to the contractor through an updated copy of the GFI provided at the Delivery Order award. The

Contractor shall have until the next milestone review or seven days to incorporate the changes into the TDP, whichever is greater.”

Changes provided by the government to GFI at DO award are unlikely to generate changes to the

TDP, since the TDP is not yet created. Is this the correct milestone event for this action?

Government Response: The Government will submit an update to the GFI provided at

Delivery Order award. The updated GFI will provide the Government-directed changes that need to be incorporated.

20) Question: Several cross-references between the SOW and Instructions to Offerors (52.212-

1) Evaluation Factors for Award (52.212-2) seem incorrect.

21) Question: How was the TDP intended to be used?

Government Response: The attachments to the Sample Delivery Order SOW should be used in conjunction with the Sample Delivery Order SOW to develop pricing.

22) Question: What level of complexity (high/medium/low) does the Government consider each section of the TDP (ITA Design/Manufacture, Support Equipment, etc.) to represent?

Government Response: Levels of complexity are referenced within the pricing matrix to provide a Best Estimated Quantity for pricing purposes. The attachments to the Sample Delivery

Order SOW should be used with the SOW and the pricing matrix to develop your pricing.

23) Question: There are no guidelines defining the “high complexity” unit price inputs that are supposed to be used in the pricing matrix. Is the TDP supposed to be a comparable package used to determine those inputs?

Government Response: Yes, the TDP should be used to price those inputs.

24) Question: The 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 reference ITA SOW paragraphs as technical evaluation factors but not SE, CCA, or PMA SOW paragraphs. However, CCAs and PMAs are potentially components in an ITA so should they be addressed in the technical volume even though the CCA/PMA SOW paragraphs are not explicitly referenced?

Government Response: The Government will be evaluating proposals based on the -1/-2 evaluation factors. Offerors are not required to address all SOW paragraphs. Offerors are only required to address the criteria listed in -1/-2, and any related SOW paragraphs.

25) Question: Based on the large amounts of information in the quotation package and the questions that have or may arise for this solicitation, does the issuer intend to or will the issuer consider extending the deadline for submission?

Government Response: The Government does not anticipate extending the solicitation response time.

26) Question: There are several attachments… i.e. Past Performance etc… That once converted to Word Version for editing, they convert to Arial 10 pt. This works fine, but when we try to go to Arial 12 pt, as requested it really messes the document up. Can you provide an Arial 12 pt word version of the Past Performance Information Sheets? Or will you give us permission to use the Arial 10 pt Word versions for the response?

Government Response: Offerors are permitted to use Arial 10 pt in the Past Performance

Information Sheets. The requirement for Arial 12 pt font only refers to the Technical volume.

27) Question: The ITAR Data Package – There are a lot of elements in there, but no real reference to the data package in the solicitation. Has this data package been supplied simply as reference? Or is there a practical/required application of the data contained in there? Please explain the USAF intention on the inclusion of that data package. What level of complexity

(high/medium/low) does the Government consider each section of the TDP (ITA

Design/Manufacture, Support Equipment, etc.) to represent?

Government Response: The attachments to the Sample Delivery Order SOW should be used in conjunction with the Sample Delivery Order SOW to develop pricing.

28) Question: According to Attachments 4 and 5, all awardees will have a fair opportunity to compete for the delivery orders, and pricing for each Delivery Order will be determined by competition at the Delivery Order level.

Government Response: Yes, that is correct.

29) Question: Each offeror’s High Complexity price for CLINS 1 and 2, and 8 thru 16, will serve as the maximum price an offeror may propose for each of the foregoing Delivery Order

CLINs regardless of the complexity of the ITA required by the Delivery Order. Accordingly, offerors for the ID/IQ award should propose a per unit price that is based on the highest complexity possible, but may offer a competitive price less than the NTE price at the time of a

Delivery Order competition.

Government Response: The offeror’s assumption is incorrect. The per unit price is based on the Sample Delivery SOW attachments.

30) Question: The NTE price for High Complexity applies as an overall price cap regardless of the complexity of the ITA required by the Delivery Order. In other words, the Medium and

Low Complexity prices automatically calculated based on the pre-assigned percentages in

Attachment 3.1 do not serve as a NTE price for Medium or Low Complexity ITAs Delivery

Order

Government Response: The offeror is correct. Prices will be competed between the awardees.

31) Question: SOW para 3.1.10 Government Directed Changes. The time allocated to incorporate design changes is the same for a level I (50-250 changes) through level IV (751 -

1000 changes) complexity. Defined as "...next milestone review or seven days whichever is longer..." We believe additional time is needed to incorporate design changes for the more complex levels, i.e. II, III, or IV.

Government Response: After review of the RFP, the Government has determined the time allotted to incorporate design changes is sufficient for all complexity levels.

32) Question: It is unclear how to bid CLINs 003 through 006, FFP Design Changes.

a) Each level represents a wide range that can vary by up to 250 changes. The level I changes can vary by a five fold (50 verses 250). This is not a reasonable way to bid a FFP item. Can the

CLINs for Design Changes be revised to a specific number of changes, or as price per change?

Government Response: The Government considered the price-per-change approach during the development of the RFP. However, the Government determined the FFP approach is most efficient. The RFP will remain unchanged.

33) Question: Design changes can differ in complexity. In the SOW 3.1.10 you give examples of electrical changes and mechanical changes. An electrical change that changes wire type or location is a simple change compared to a mechanical change that requires changing form or fit of a component. Can there be a scale added to account for the number of documents that the change effects?

Government Response: The Government has determined a scale will not be added. The RFP will remain unchanged.

34) Question: The electrical change does not reference any changes to CCA’s. Are CCA’ not included in these changes?

Government Response: Per SOW 3.1.10, the Government Directed Changes are applicable to work performed under SOW 3.2.

35) Question: Please clarify: If CLINs 003 thru 006 Design Changes are FFP, then the subsequent price for the Delivery Order design changes would be as stated in CLIN 003 thru

006.

Government Response: The offeror is correct.

36) Question: Is the design sample provided in the RFQ for CCA Design and Manufacture pages 513 thru 548 representative of the high complexity CCA that is considered the basis to be used for the pricing in the RFQ?

Government Response: Yes.

37) Question: Is the design sample provided in the RFQ for PMA Design and Manufacture pages 549 thru 585 representative of the high complexity PMA that is considered the basis to be used for the pricing in the RFQ?

38) Question: Is the design sample provided in the RFQ for ITA Manufacture pages 6 thru

154 representative of the high complexity ITA that is considered the basis to be used for the pricing in the RFQ?

39) Question: The Support Equipment Design and Manufacture lists Self-Test/Calibration

ITAs and Associated Hardware as TBD. Will USAF supply the drawings for these items? Are the supplied drawings for the equipment and associated wiring diagrams the basis for estimating the design and manufacture cost along with TBD items? Is this sample representative of the high complexity Support Equipment that is considered the basis to be used for pricing in the RFQ?

Government Response: No, the Government will not supply the drawings for the Self-

Test/Calibration ITAs, the development of those items would be considered within scope. Yes, the sample is representative.

40) Question: Please note the CLINS 1 and 2, and 8 thru 16, are indicated as being FFP CLINS in the Schedule. We believe these should be modified to indicate the CLINS are NTE.

Government Response: The CLINs are listed as FFP, and are essentially firm fixed not-to-exceed prices.

41) Question: With respect to CLINS 3 thru 6 the Government is requesting Firm Fixed

Prices for what is described as Level I, Level II, Level III and Level IV changes. The Level of changes is based solely on the quantity of changes required. Offerors are asked to provide a FFP if the Government requires the contractor to make up to 250 changes in the ITA design; a FFP if the design changes by the contractor exceed 250 through 500; a FFP if the design changes required are between 501 and 750, and a FFP for 751-1,000 changes. We submit the number of changes required, without consideration of the types of changes required, is not an adequate basis to propose a FFP because a single major change to the design can have a greater cost impact that a large number of minor changes. Please consider modifying these FFP CLINS to NTE CLINS so that contractors can appropriately price changes based on the Government’s actual requirements as defined by each Delivery Order. We submit this will permit the Government to achieve better pricing based on actual requirements; currently the solicitation incentivizes contractors to propose the maximum FFP for each Level of change in order to capture all possible changes the Government might make to a particular design. In addition, please clarify whether these CLINS are cumulative. In other words, if a Delivery Order specifies 250 changes and the Government requires 251 changes, will the contractor be entitled to be paid for both

Level I and Level II CLINS?

Government Response: The Government considered alternative approaches during the development of the RFP. However, the Government determined the FFP approach is most efficient. The RFP will remain unchanged. Also, the CLINs are not cumulative. In the example provided by the offeror, the offeror would be paid for the Level II range (251-500).

42) Question: The solicitation is silent with respect to changes required after manufacture of the ITA (i.e. during integration efforts). Does the Government anticipate requesting contractors to make design changes first discovered during integration and, if so, how will contractors be paid for such efforts?

Government Response: Updating Technical Data Packages is considered to be within scope of the contract and is described in SOW 3.2.5.2.

43) Question: The SOWs do not specify the time limit for the government to review the PDR or CDR packages. Will there be a time limit for the government to provide comments and changes to the PDR and CDR packages?

Government Response: PDR and CDR timelines are addressed in CDRL A005.

44) Question: The parts list supplied on the drawings (Ref Pgs 12-14 of Attachment 2a) for the ITA Manufacture do not specify the manufacturer part numbers or the manufacturers of the items. The material cannot be quoted with the information provided in the data package as no cage code is listed on the individual items on the parts list. Are vendor items drawings to be provided for each part in the ITA in the same fashion as provided in the Support Equipment package?

Government Response: Available item drawings are to be provided for the parts list in the ITA

Manufacture GFI example. This example is for pricing purposes only and therefore may not have drawings for all parts. The Government expects to have all item drawings for delivery orders, however the provided GFI in Attachment 2a is an example of what could potentially be included in the delivery order.

45) Question: We request the government provide the following solicitation referenced documents: GEIA-STD-0007, AFMC D220 and TA-HB-0007-01.

Government Response: In accordance with the basic SOW paragraph 2.0 applicable documents "Copies of specifications, standards and handbooks listed below are available from

ASSIST website – quicksearch.dla.mil, e-publishing.af.mil/ and commercial sources unless otherwise noted." The Government does not own the industry standards listed and therefore, cannot be provided; however can be obtained by company expense.

46) Question: Per Page 198 of 202 of the Solicitation, it states: "The offeror must possess, or acquire prior to award of a contract, a facility clearance equal to the highest classification stated on the Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254) attached to this solicitation." Questions to the Government is willingness to Readdress the need for clearance at the time of Award due to the fact the DD-254 is not valid until after the award of the basic contract? Would you be willing to sponsor the processing of our Facility Clearance now with our commitment to submit a proposal to your requirement? Can we not be Escorted should the need arise BEFORE or Facility Clearance has been reinstated? Can one of our Subcontractors represent into WR Bldg. 640 or 645 until such time that our Facility Clearance is in place? What is your position, if we could find interim sponsorship, if by time of award, the Facility Clearance was still in process?

Government Response: The Government has conducted a review of 5352.215-9000, Facility

Clearance clause and have determined to remove the clause in its entirety and incorporate language into FAR 52.212-1Addendum that states " The offeror, and subcontractors as required, must possess, or acquire prior to award of a delivery order, a facility clearance equal to the highest classification stated on the Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254) attached to this solicitation. The Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) will be used to verify facility clearances. The Government will sponsor awardees for a facility clearance under this solicitation."

47) Question: In reference to document FAR 52.212-1, table 2.3 Proposal Organization, the

Government has given a 2 page limit for the Present/Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIS)

(Attachment 2.1). However, the information sheet provided is 1 ¾ pages long without completing questions H-K. Is it the intention of the Government to have offeror’s fill out

Attachment 2.1 for each contract to be a 2 page limit in total or 2 pages to answer questions paragraph H - K?

Government Response: The Government’s intent is for offerors to have a full opportunity to completely describe their relevancy in relation to this contract. Offeror’s can provide additional pages if needed.

48) Question: Are the following TMCR references to S1000D deliverables in error?

TMCR Paragraph 6 TO Development:

- Paragraph 6.1 specifies S1000D deliverables

- Paragraph 6.2 specifies SGML deliverables

TMCR Paragraph 10.7 Technical Data Assessment:

- 10.7.1 talks about SGML data

- 10.7.2 talks about S1000D data

TMCR Paragraph 11 TO Delivery:

11.2 & 11.2 talk about SGML deliveries

11.3 talks about IETM deliveries but points to Section 2 for details

Section 2 doesn’t select S1000D deliverables

TMCR Table 3 specifies paper and SGML deliverables – not S1000D

Government Response: The Government has included two versions of the TM-86-01 document in the solicitation. The version included in Attachment 2a was provided for pricing purposes. The version included in Exhibit A was provided to establish the scope of the technical manual requirement for this acquisition.

49) Question: The following drawings are listed on the family tree and are missing from the

Interface Test Adapter manufacturing data.

201014374,201014377, 201014361, 201014362, 201014367, 201014368, 201014373, 201014375, 201014376, 201014324, 201014371, 201014372, 201014369, 201014286, 201014317, 201014358, 201014370, 201014329, 201014335, 201014336, 201014337, 201014338, 201014339, 201014340, 201014341, 201014342, 201014343, 201014344, 201014345, 201014346, 201014347, 201014348, 201014349, 201014350, 201014351, 201014352, 201014353, 201014354, 201014355, 201014356, 201014358, 201014359, 201014360, 201014363, 201014364, 201014365, 201014366

Government Response: The Government provided a response to a question regarding drawings for ITA Manufacturing (Question 44) in the posted Questions and Answers. Additional drawings have been provided through amendment 0004.

50) Question: Due to the government's delayed response to the submitted questions where 3 weeks had passed before responses were posted, we request a 2 week extension to the proposal due date.

Government Response: The Government will extend the solicitation by two weeks to allow offerors to review the additional drawings. Reference amendment 0004.

51) Question: The SE Design and Manufacture sample in the RFQ Attachment 2a, lists part number of instruments and sub-assemblies for the SE prototype and also for SE Production

Copies. For pricing are we to assume that the production copies need to be included as part of the

SE Manufacture price or are we pricing the items listed in the prototype section only?

Government Response: Per the Delivery Order SOW Sample 3.2.2.3.1, only one copy of the

Support Equipment is requested. For the SE Design and Manufacture sample, please only price the top section of the table on page 186 of Attachment 2a, through “ENVID GEN-510 with option 3”.

52) Question: Attachment 3 Instructions to Offerors, Table 2.3 Proposal Organization, para

4.1.1 - Present/Past Performance Information Sheets list the page limit to 2 pages. If a minimum of 5 PPI forms for both prime and subcontractor is required from offerors and each form 2 is pages the 2 page limitation is not correct. Should this be unlimited or minimum of 10 pages?

Government Response: The Government addressed the issue from this question in its response

(Question #47) in the posted Question and Answers.

53) Question: Based on the answer given by the Govt to question 44, it is not clear on how to price the material for the ITA. Except for the VPC module connectors, there are no VIDs in the updated package that identifies the manufacturer part numbers for the ITA materials. Since we are to base the material cost for the most complex ITA as provided in the ITA manufacture sample of Attachment 2a, then all the manufacturer part numbers are required from the government for pricing the material.

Government Response: The Government provided a response to a question regarding drawings for ITA Manufacturing (Question 44) in the posted Questions and Answers. Additional drawings have been provided through amendment 0004.

54) Question: Can you please clarify where you would like the pricing matrix?

Government Response: The Pricing Matrix should be included in Volume III as Attachment

3.1.

55) Question: As a follow-on to Question 47… In table 2.3 as part of Attachment 3 ITO: The outline for Volume II is not clear.

You have separated the Relevant Contract Narrative from the PPIS?? It seems from the questions in and layout of the PPIS, the relevancy narratives and Past Performance descriptions etc… belong within the PPIS paragraphs and thus should be up with the PPIS. Not sure how to make sense of splitting the PPIS and the Relevancy Narrative as paragraph ( I. ) of the PPIS clearly requests this information? Can you please clarify? Can you please consider reorganizing

Volume II to better match the PPIS?

Government Response: The Government preference is the relative contract narrative as described in 4.3.2 should be included within each PPIS form tailored to that particular contract.

For instance, Contract X001-what work did the contractor perform on that particular contract which would be relevant to the ITA effort. Although, they are listed separately on the table the narrative should be included in the PPIS.

56) Question: In Attachment 3, ITO, paragraph 4.3.3:

Roadmap – The instructions, while clear, I am not sure are very applicable to many small companies? Is it acceptable to say… That we have had no significant events or re-organizations?

Do you want this information for all our subcontractors/teammates?

Government Response: Yes, if an organizational structure change history is not applicable to your company or subcontractors/teaming partners.

57) Question: As a follow-up to Question 17…

In the document Question and Answers… the Question 17 was not answered. Can you please answer the question on whether the data package presents the MOST COMPLEX that any

Delivery Order will ever present?

Government Response: As stated in the response to Question 17, the pricing provided by the offerors will establish the NTE price for that offeror for that CLIN. If the Government submits a delivery order for bid that exceeds the NTE for a CLIN, then that delivery order would be out of scope of the contract.

58) Question: Data Rights

In document

Attachment_1__Enterprise_ITA_and_Related_Test_Equipment_Statement_of_Work_(

SOW)_Government_Furnished_Property_(GFP), which is the SOW for the base contract

IDIQ… Can you justify the level of Data Rights as stated?

In SOW paragraph 3.1.12, the Government is requiring ownership of all documents, materials, software, and source code produced in the performance of this contract and is requesting

Offerors to assign copyright to the Government. This scenario is as if the items produced on contract were considered Special Works under FAR 27.405(a)(1). Under 17 USC § 201(a), the general rule is that the author of the work owns it. The Offeror requests the Government revise

SOW 3.1.12 to request only unlimited rights to use items originally produced in the performance of the contract without transfer of ownership/copyright to the Government.

Can you please clarify? Or am I misinterpreting this?

Government Response: The Government shall have unlimited rights to technical data produced under this contract. See Amendment 0005.

59) Question: Page 186 of Attachment 2a lists Support Equipment that will need to be provided as part of the DO. There is an 18 slot PXI Express Chassis listed without any PXI modules to populate the Chassis. Are there any PXI modules needed as support equipment to populate the 18 slot Chassis? Could a smaller Chassis size fit the governments need?

Government Response: The Government’s requirement does not include any PXI modules.

The chassis size listed should be utilized for the proposal.

60) Question: There are VXI based modules listed in the Support Equipment section of

Attachment 2a (Pg 186). Is it the government’s intent to use the VXI chassis that is already in

VDATS for these modules, or does a VXI Chassis need to be included in our quote of Support

Equipment?

Government Response: For the purposes of the sample delivery order SOW and pricing, offerors can assume the VXI chassis is being procured and installed by the Government after delivery.

61) Question: Follow-up to Question 27: Complexity

What level of complexity does the Government consider each section of the TDP (ITA

Design/Mfg, Support Equipment, etc.) to represent?

Government Response: Refer to question 5 from 3rd round Q&A.

62) Question: Follow-up to Question 44: Pricing

How will unbalance pricing determinations be made with this type of pricing instructions and evaluation. The TEP calculations that you will be comparing have been prepared in various ways and could vary greatly. We understand there are methods defined in the FARS, however, we would like to know which of these methods you plan on using. How will your methods account for the differences in methodologies?

Government Response: Separate prices will be submitted by the Offeror for Years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (by CLIN). Upon review, if there is a significant discrepancy between the years, the pricing may be considered unbalanced. It is important to note that balance is reviewed at the unit price level, and not at the total price level due to quantity differences. See these generic examples of possible unbalanced pricing:

CLIN 0001 (proposed UNIT prices)

Year 1: $5.00

Year 2: $2.00 (decrease of -60%)

Year 3: $1.00 (decrease of -50%)

Year 4: $2.00 (increase of 50%)

Year 5: $4.00 (increase of 100%)

CLIN 0001 (proposed UNIT prices)

Year 1: $5.00

Year 2: $5.25 (increase of 5%)

Year 3: $5.50 (increase of 5%)

Year 4: $7.00 (increase of 27%)

Year 5: $5.75 (decrease of 18%)

If these example prices were proposed without an explanation for why fluctuations occurred between the years, the pricing may be considered unbalanced.

63) Question: On pg 186 of Attachment 2a there is a list of support equipment needed. There is a quantity of 1 on the “201522948-10 Prototype”, and a Quantity of 2 on the “201522948-10

Copies”. It seems the “201522948-10 Copies” hardware list is a multiple of 2 of everything on the “201522948-10 Prototype” hardware list, except for the Synchro/Resolver Processor PN

65CS4-A2210E0-A2210E0-N has a quantity of 1, and the ENVID GEN-510 with option 3&7 has a quantity of 1. Please confirm that the quantities listed for each piece of hardware is correct as stated. Also, please confirm if the hardware quantities listed under “201522948-10 Copies” need to be multiplied by a factor of 2, or if they are to be quoted as listed.

Government Response: Refer to question 51. The Government is requesting that offerors price a single copy of the Support equipment, per the SOW.

64) Question: Referring to Attachment_2a_-_Delivery_Order_Sample_SOW_Attachments_1-

8_Update and the GFI FOR SUPPORT EQUIPMENT, Page 186 represents a top level BOM which we assume should be used for pricing CLIN x009 Support Equipment Manufacture High

Complexity. Should the offeror quote just the AB-9 Assembly prototype (quantity of 1) or the prototype plus the 2 copies for the total price in CLIN x009?

Government Response: Refer to question 51.

65) Question: Contract volume - Can you please clarify, if the entire Solicitation, SF1449 needs to be included in sleeves without punched holes?

The entire 202 pages?

Just the first 2 pages?

Or the first 2 pages, plus the pages with the individual CLIN Prices? (pages 3 through 133)?

Does this “No Holes” apply to JUST the ORIGINAL or Copy 1 and Copy 2 also of Volume

4?

Government Response: The ORIGINAL entire SF1449 should be included without punched holes.

66) Question: In the SOW section 3.2.1.2.2 the Government requests a schematic or wiring diagram during PDR. Is the wiring diagram considered a preliminary document? To what level is it to be completed?

Government Response: The Government will consider the documentation submitted IAW

3.2.1.2.2 to be preliminary. The level required will be dependent on the Government Furnished

Information provided as well as the Contractor's proposed milestones in the project planning chart.

67) Question: Paragraph 6.3.4 Of Attachment 3 ITO says that the following will be provided as attachment to the model contract: There are no attachments, the page is blank. Are there attachments that need to be included along with the model contract?

Government Response: The list of attachments are continued on the next page.

68) Question: The pricing in Attachment 3.1, Pricing Matrix and the pricing in the Model contract will not match unless the pricing is copied from the Pricing matrix and placed as such in the model contract. In the model contract, there is not information concerning the High, Medium or Low complexity pricing, it simply asked for the unit price and the extended price which is the unit price multiplied by the quantity. Our pricing was developed using the high complexity per your request. Is it the desire of the government that we copy the pricing from the matrix and place that in the model contract to make the pricing the same or are you anticipating different pricing between the two documents?

Government Response: For the model contract, please input the NTE amount and total quantity. The Offeror and Government recognize that the overall contract value reflected here will appear unrealistically high, given that medium and low complexities will occur during the course of the contract. Please note that the prices reflected in Attachment 3.1, Pricing Matrix are strictly for the purposes of computing the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Complexity levels will not be reflected in the resulting contract award.

69) Question: In Attachment 2 – SOW for the DO please confirm the following:

a) There are two 3.2.3.2.1 sections listed. Should the second one discussing the PDR for the

CCA design be designated 3.2.3.2.2?

b) There are two 3.2.4.1 sections listed. Should the second heading discussing PMA Design be 3.2.4.2? Would this change PMA Manufacture to 3.2.4.3 and PMA Acceptance to 3.2.4.4?

70) Question: Comparing the ITA design GFI Min Sample for DO with the pictures of the

ITAs in the “ITA Pictures.pdf” document, the level of complexity in the ITAs pictured is much higher than what is provided in the Sample. For example, the ITA Design GFI Min Sample calls out a total of 444 contacts between Interface connectors #1 and #2, whereas the picture of the inside of the ITA on pg. 14 in the “ITA Pictures.pdf” shows a much more complex design with many more connections. When quoting the design cost for a High Complexity ITA, should the

ITAs shown in the pictures be taken into consideration, since they seem to be more representative of a High Complexity ITA than the ITA Design GFI Min Sample provided?

Government Response: No, the information provided in Attachment 2a is what should be utilized for pricing.

71) Question: During ITA Design, if it is discovered a CCA is needed as part of the design, would the CCA design cost for the ITA be part of the ITA Design CLIN, or will the funding for this design come out of the CCA Design CLIN?

Government Response: A CCA that is necessary for a complete ITA design would be considered part of the ITA design CLIN.

72) Question: Are there any special packaging and/or shipping requirements for the delivery to the Government of manufactured ITAs, SE, CCAs, or PMAs?

Government Response: The only shipping requirements are outlined starting on page 190 of the solicitation under the F.O.B DESTINATION clause.

73) Question: Is there any additional information on test requirements; specifically is there a way for us to see examples of the TPS code?

Government Response: Test requirements and example TPS code are out of scope for this contract.

74) Question: Will we have access to the design intent for the FPGAs on the various boards?

Government Response: Design intent for components on the various boards is out of scope of this contract.

75) Question: Are there any SOCs to consider with hardened characteristics?

Government Response: Unsure of the question since the acronym SOC is not spelled out. This question seems out of scope as well.