Contractor Questions-Answers_10Feb2022.pdf

# Reference Question Answer

Attachment_3_Addendum_52.212‐2_IT A 2.3.2.2 ‐ Relevancy Assessment

Would the USG clarify the distinction between teammates and subcontractors as related to offerer submissions?

For evaluation purposes, there is no distinction between "subcontractor" and "teammate". The Government's intent is to evaluate the members of the Offeror's team (subcontractors, teaming partners, etc.) based on the portion of effort they are proposed to perform. It is important for the Offeror to accurately describe each member of the team and the portion of effort each member is proposed to perform. Paragraph 4.3.1 of Attachment 2 Addendum 52.212-1 - Significant subcontractor is defined as a contractor who is proposed to perform over 10% of the total effort, or a contractor who is proposed to perform less than 10% of the total effort, but is determined to be performing a critical function.

Paragraph 2.3.2.2 of Attachment 3 Addendum 52.212-2 - In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

2 N/A In addition to the past performance submissions, will the USG accept/consider "references" (Prime Contractors, USG COR, teammates) from the bidders for relevant experience not within the 3 year time limitation?

The recency description provided in Attachment 3, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 2.3.2.1 applies to all past performance information. The Government will consider "references" provided that all or part of the performance occurred within the 3-year time frame. Any effort submitted where all of the performance occurred outside the 3-year time frame will not be considered as part of the evaluation.

Attachment_2_Addendum_52.212‐1_IT A 2.3.3, Table 2.3 ‐ Proposal Organization

What does "Tab Only" mean for the page limitation of the ITO paragraph 4.2?

Each Past Performance Questionnaire is considered a tab. Offerors can submit up to five (5) PPI forms for the prime contractor, and up to five (5) PPI forms for each significant subcontractor/teaming partner. Note, as stated in the ITO, paragraph 4.3, the requested number of PPI forms for the prime and subcontractors are preferences and not requirements.

Offerors may submit more than the preferred number, if the Offeror believes the extra contracts are needed to fully describe their relevancy. Also note within the same paragraph, while the Government requests each PPI form to not exceed five pages, more or less may be submitted if necessary and relevant to the Enterprise Interface Test Adapter and Related Test Equipment.

4 ITO_Attachment_3.1

For the pricing of CLINS, is it the intent of the USG for the offerers to base this pricing on the example assembly drawings provided by the USG via SAFE, or are we to provide assumptions/parts list/drawings showing the basis of this cost estimate? If we are to use the example assembly drawings provided, would the USG specify which assemblies/drawings should be used for each CLIN?

The Government cannot provide direction on how to formulate proposal pricing.

The Government is not going to need the exact hardware listed in the drawing package that was posted. The drawings were submitted to provide offerors with a general idea of what is to come. The intention is to use the example provided to price something similar. The example drawings are more on the high complexity side of things, and the Government is only asking for one overall price per CLIN.

In regards to the components manufactured by current incumbents or potential competitors, the intention is not to price the exact example posted.

5 N/A

Some of the example files provided for hardware appear to contain components manufactured by current incumbents and potential competitors, but the data provided does not contain the technical details that would allow for alternate sourcing and pricing. Will the USG provide Gerber files and all details required to manufacture the hardware?

The Government will not be providing Gerber files or details to manufacture the hardware.

ITO Attachment 3.1 Pricing Matrix and the generation of pricing for each CLIN

Within the scope of Attachment 2 Addendum 52.212-1 ITA (Instructions To Offerors), there are clear instructions and guidance for pricing methods and evaluation. However, there is no explanation of specifically what is to be priced. Can the Government please clarify what Offerors are expected to price for each Contract Line Item?

The solicitation provides information for what is to be priced in the section titled “Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs”, pages 3-11. For instance, on page 3, CLIN 0001 (or “Item” as it’s titled), is for the Interface Test Adapter Design, as stated in the Supplies/Service column. There is also a referenced corresponding Statement of Work paragraph 3.2.1.2. SOW paragraph 3.2.1.2, along with the subparagraphs, provides details describing the Offeror’s requirements for the Interface Test Adapter Design. The next column is the estimated quantity the Offeror is required to propose. For CLIN 001, the quantity is 40. Offerors are instructed to not complete the “unit price” or “amount” columns in the solicitation document. All of the remaining CLINS are listed in the solicitation. There are 14 total CLINS (0001-0014). The CLINs are repeated for each additional ordering period (example, CLINS 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001). The Offeror is required to develop a unit price for each of the CLINS, and for all ordering periods.

The solicitation, Attachment 2, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, Section 5.0 Factor 3 Price, provides instructions on how to submit the unit prices for each CLIN. Paragraph 5.2.6 states, “Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of prices provided in the ITA Pricing Matrix, ITO Attachment 3.1. The ITA Pricing Matrix spreadsheet will calculate the Offeror’s TEP which is used as the basis for proposed pricing. Proposed unit prices will be input into the spreadsheet by Offerors and extended pricing will be calculated based on estimated evaluation quantities provided by the Government. “ The Pricing Matrix is a spreadsheet provided as Attachment 3.1. Within the Matrix, tab 1 “Instructions” includes instructions on how to complete the Matrix. Tab 2 Enterprise ITA Pricing Matrix is the matrix itself. Offerors are required to input the proposed unit price for each CLIN and for each Ordering Period in the cells highlighted in yellow. Offerors are instructed to only complete the highlighted cells. The remainder of the matrix, to include the total amounts for each CLIN and the overall Total Evaluated Price, will be calculated automatically by the matrix.

ITO 4.2. Early Proposal Information - (we understand that this is a request and not a requirement) ITO Table 2.3

ITO 4.2.1 Requests a (full) “Volume II Past Performance for each Relevant Contract” 15 days prior to due date ITO 4.2.2 Defines the early requested requirements as 2 Documents (PPQ ITO Attach 1.2 and PPQ Cover Letter Attach 1.3)

Can the Government please clarify which they would like:

- Separate and full volumes (as defined in ITO Table 2.3 – Vol II ) for each Relevant Contract, 15 days prior?

- Or early processing of the PPQ and PPQ Cover Letter – then a (full) Volume II (as defined in ITO Table 2.3 – Vol II) submitted along with the other required Volumes?

If the Offeror chooses to submit Past Performance Early Proposal Information, the Government is primarily interested in the Relevant contracts, which includes the Past Performance Information Forms (PPIFs) described in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 52.212-1, paragraph 4.3.1, and the Offeror’s Relevant Contract Narrative for each PPIF described in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 4.3.2. The evaluation of relevancy can be time consuming, and it is helpful to receive the information early for evaluation purposes. The remainder of Volume II, can also be submitted with the Early Proposal Information or can be submitted with the rest of proposal (Vol I, Vol III, etc.).

Is it the Government’s intent for offerors to bid pricing based on the Example Data Package that was included in the updated posting on SAM.gov on 14 Jan 2022?

No. This is just an example document that you may use, if you chose to do so, in assisting in the development of your proposal.

9 N/A

We are requesting a 30 day extension for proposal submission due to the complexity and volume of information required to generate the pricing response for each CLIN. The example files provided for the hardware appear to contain components manufactured by current incumbents and potential competitors, however the data provided doesn’t contain the technical details that would allow for alternate sourcing and pricing of these components. We are requesting additional technical details and time in order to allow our selected subcontractors to evaluate the requirements and provide realistic cost estimates for the hardware components that can be adequately explained in the required pricing narrative.

At this time the Government is not going to extend the solicitation date. The solicitation will close on 23 February. In regards to the components manufactured by current incumbents or potential competitors, the intention is not to price the exact example posted. The Government has provided sufficient technical information for proposal building purposes and does not intend to provide any additional technical data at this time.

10 Attachment 3.1 ITA Pricing Matrix

We don’t understand where the basis for these prices should be derived from. ITAs can be simple (low cost) or very complex (high cost). Same with Support Equipment. We could have a simple piece of support equipment like an air blower unit which is very low cost, or we could have an RF equipment rack assembly that could be an extremely high cost.

The issue here is that every bidder’s prices should be evaluated on the same level playing field, meaning they should all be pricing the same hardware items in order to fairly evaluate their pricing against each other.

The Government cannot provide direction on how to formulate proposal pricing.

The Government is not going to need the exact hardware listed in the drawing package that was posted. The drawings were submitted to provide offerors with a general idea of what is to come. The intention is to use the example provided to price something similar. The example drawings are more on the high complexity side of things, and the Government is only asking for one overall price per CLIN.

In regards to the components manufactured by current incumbents or potential competitors, the intention is not to price the exact example posted.

11 N/A

May we do a site visit to inspect the ITA test set equipment/parts the Government intends for FA812622R0001?

Will each PWS section (e.g. CCA) have a sample task order to bid to?

Please provide any NSN numbers that may be relevant.

What is the unit of measure for each "Item" starting on page 3 of 105 - for example 0001, is “40 each” = 40 hours?/weeks?/months? of electrical engineering circuit design anticipated for “Interface Test Adapter Design” ?

How many awards does the government anticipate for this opportunity?

No, the Government will not be holding a site visit prior to award. Once there has been an award, the Government is open to providing a tour to the winning contractors.

No, an example has been provided and can be used to help each contractor develop their proposal.

There are no relevant NSNs at this time. All pertinent information will be provided on a per delivery order basis once the contracts are awarded.

Each means each. It could be one drawing or one item. It is up to the contractor to determine how many hours or weeks they anticipate using and calculate that into the unit price for each requirement on the CLINs.

RFP Attachment 3, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 1.2 states, The Government intents to select up to four (4) contractors for this requirement. The amount of delivery orders for this contract is unknown.

Attachment_2_Addendum_52.212-1 Paragraph 3.2.3a

“The offeror shall provide an approach for Contractor Qualifications for the Interface Test Adapter and Related Test Equipment.” “The offer shall provide an approach for the performance of a delivery order, which includes the design and manufacture of an interface test adapter, and how UUT will be assessed….”

Can the government please confirm that they are requesting design and manufacturing approach for the Interface Test Adapter IN ADDITION to the circuit card assembly, support equipment, and personality module assembly? Or are offerors to understand the above quoted language to mean that the design and manufacturing approach is ONLY needed for the Interface Test Adapter?

You will only need to provide an approach for the design and manufacture of an ITA. Please note that you will need to state how you will utilize and assess the measurements from a UUT. Your response does not need to touch on the other CLINs you have mentioned in your question: circuit card assembly, support equipment, and personality module assembly.

13 N/A

We have several separate task orders awarded that are identical in scope. Can we list all of those tasks as a single past performance item to capture the full period of performance, or is it acceptable to cite one of the task orders as past performance and refer to the additional task orders within the writing for the one?

If all task orders are under one contract you can submit all of the task orders under one past performance item. However, please note that the task orders you list must meet the recency requirement.

Attachment_2_Addendum_52.212-1 Paragraph 2.3.3 Table 2.3 and Paragraph 4.3.1

Is the 2 page limit for PPIFs (Attachment 1.1) per form? Paragraph 2.3.3, Table 2.3 shows a page limit of 2 pages for the Attachment 1.1, PPIF.

Paragraph 4.3.1 states “Request each PPI form not exceed a target of five (5) pages, although more or less may be submitted, if necessary and relevant to the Enterprise Interface Test Adapter and Related Test Equipment program.

The page limits for Past Performance are targets and not hard limits and are per document. Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraphs 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 state the Offeror can provide more than the target limit if the Offeror determines it’s necessary to fully describe relevancy.