Solicitation_FA8126-16-R-0002__Question_and_Answer_FINAL_3rd_Round.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.