Response to Industry Questions 18 July.docx

Thunderbolt Life-cycle Program Support (TLPS) Contract Air Force Reponses to Industry comments and questions regarding the TLPS Draft RFP 18 July 2008

1. Industry Comment: there appears to be a conflict between one of the solicitation provisions and the Labor Hour Rates paragraph in Section L. DFARS 252.216-7002 Alternate A cited on page 30 of the draft RFP requires offerors to establish fixed hourly rates using separate rates for each category of labor to be performed by each subcontractor and for each category of labor to be performed by the offeror, and for each category of labor to be transferred between divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of the offeror under a common control. This indicates blended labor rates cannot be used however paragraph 7.6, Labor Hour Rates of the updated Section L posted 21 May 2008 states “Each labor rate is a single composite rate for a labor category and will be utilized for both the prime and the prime’s subcontractors.”

Air Force Response: DFARS 252.216-7002 will apply at the task order level as appropriate where the labor hour contract type is used. At the task order level the offerors should be able to identify specific rates for the prime contractor and subcontractors etc. within the limits of the NTE rates established at the basic contract level.

A single composite rate for each labor category is required at the basic contact level and will be used to establish NTE rates for the contract and for price evaluation.

2. Industry Comment: RFP – Performance Work Statement WARTHOG 2020 – Rev 2- Dated 29 Apr 2008 - Paragraph 2.2.1.5 “Proprietary Information”: Paragraph 2.2.1.5 states..."The government shall have unlimited rights to all intellectual property, things or concepts, including all items, systems, processes, software and technical data developed by the contractor under this contract. Software procured by the contractor shall have unlimited rights licensing agreements passed through to the government from the subcontractor or supplier who developed the data or item. The government may use any of such items, data, or other property for re-procurement or any other purpose as stated in the DFARS definition of “unlimited rights.” The contractor shall identify, and receive written approval from, the PCO prior to committing to the use of any privately developed items, components, processes, computer software and technical data which the contractor intends to deliver with limited rights, government purpose rights, or restricted rights"... Comment: there may be certain commercial or privately developed products required that we nor the other offerors' will be able to provide with unlimited rights as defined by the DFAR. This may be particularly true if the Government plans to use this software with unlimited rights for future re-procurements.

We also have concerns that the wording contained in Paragraph 2.2.1.5 may conflict with the standard DFARS Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software Clauses, which protect both the Government and the Contractor’s data rights. It is our recommendation the Government considers adding the applicable DFAR Clauses to the RFP and revise the wording in PWS Paragraph 2.2.1.5, retaining only the first sentence so it reads as follows:

"The government shall have unlimited rights to all intellectual property, things or concepts, including all items, systems, processes, software and technical data developed by the contractor under this contract”.

Air Force Response: Government agrees with recommended change and reworded as follows: The government shall have unlimited rights to all intellectual property, things or concepts, including all items, systems, processes, software and technical data developed by the contractor and/or its subcontractors under this contract under this contract. The government may use any of such items, data, or other property for re-procurement or any other purpose as stated in the DFARS definition of “unlimited rights.” The contractor shall identify and receive written approval from the PCO, A-10 System Program Manager, and A-10 Chief Engineer prior to committing to the use of any privately developed items, components, processes, computer software and technical data which the contractor intends to deliver with limited rights, government purpose rights, or restricted rights.

3. Industry Comment: RFP – Performance Work Statement WARTHOG 2020 – Rev 2- Dated 29 Apr 2008 - Paragraph 2.2.3.3 “Technical Data” Comment: This is the same issue described under Item 3 above. Paragraph 2.2.3.3 reads as follows:

This technical data shall be used for logistical support, including competitive re-procurement, manufacturing, troubleshooting and shall be delivered without limited rights/proprietary markings of any kind, unless identified and approved by the government within the specific task/delivery order.

Recommend revising the paragraph to read as follows:

This technical data shall be used for logistical support, including competitive re-procurement, manufacturing and troubleshooting.

Or This technical data shall be used for logistical support, including competitive re-procurement, manufacturing, troubleshooting and shall include appropriate data rights and/or proprietary markings identified within the specific task/delivery order.

Air Force Response: The Air Force has considered this comment and has determined to leave the PWS unchanged in this regard.

4. Industry Comment: Recommend labor categories, hours, number of trips for how many people for what length of time, and period of performance be included in the Integration Support PWS. Recommend the Government consider ensuring all information the Contractors need in order to bid be provided in the PWS to ensure the Government can do an apples to apples comparison with the proposals. Recommend additional cost types be included for Travel effort and consider removal of the individual authorization requirement prior to traveling.

Air Force Response: The intent is to have each offeror propose 1 x man year of Senior PM, 1 x man year of Senior EN, and ½ x man year of Config / Data manager for labor. Per the PWS travel will be to each quarterly PMR and the ASARC with one PRM hosted at your facility. We will plan each PMR to last 1.5 days and the ASARC to last 3 days. Language detailing this will be included in the ISTO PWS

5. Industry Comment: In Section L, paragraph 5.5 we are required to submit a spreadsheet. One of the columns is “Phone Number and E-mail Addresses for at Least Two POCs”. Are these contractor or Government POCs?

Air Force Response: Government POCs; clarification will be added to Section L

6. Industry Comment: Clarify the requirements of the TLPS basic contract for EVMS (ref. Section L, Paragraph 4.5.1, Subfactor 1, Certifications, Subparagraph A. B.)

Air Force Response: Section L paragraph 4.5.1.A.b has been rewritten to be consistent with the referenced DFARS provision and clause. Offerors must provide documentation of a certified EVMS or a comprehensive plan for compliance.

Section L Paragraph 4.5.1.A.b will read:

Documentation evidencing DCMA certified Earned Value Management System (EVMS) in compliance with ANSI/EIA-748 or a comprehensive plan for compliance with the guidelines in ANSI/EIA-748 in accordance with contract provision 252.234-7001 as included in this RFP. Documentation is required as part of this proposal for the TLPS basic contract; however, EVMS will be implemented at a Task Order level as applied at DFARS 234.201

7. Industry Comment: Recommend allowing two additional PPISs to be submitted to show Past Performance in relation to Small Business Clauses FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9 (ref. Small Business Past Performance - Revised Section L-900 Paragraph 5.0 "Volume III - Past Performance" - Subparagraph 5.3)

Air Force Response: It is important to the Air Force to understand how offerors have performed with relation to small business on relevant work.

Past Performance information will be gathered from many sources including PPISs. It is important that the Air Force understand past performance in all aspects of particular contract. Additional PPISs submitted for small business only would need to have questionnaires completed like any other PPIS; and therefore would not be evaluated for small business alone.

To maintain fairness in the submission of past performance information the Air Force feels that all contractors should have the same opportunity to submit PPISs without exceptions for small business. The best way to do this is to limit the number of total PPISs submitted.

The Air Force will accept a total 10 PPISs as described in Section L Paragraph 5.2