AF_Response_to_Industry_Comments_Released.pdf

General RFP Responses

1. The title sheet states “Contractor agrees to hold its offered prices firm for 30 days.” Is 30 days enough time to process the RFP responses and award the contract? Would it be better for the AF to allow 60, or 90 days instead?

Answer

The title sheet will be changed to hold offered prices firm for 90 days.

2. What is the contemplated time for contract award?

The government intends to award the contract by November 2014.

3. Will the CPFF item 001 (RVA CLS Annual Support) include only man-hours, or will replacement components be included as materials in this item number?

All costs associated with maintenance will be included under CPFF 001 RVA CLS Annual Support.

Please see updated pricing matrix and PWS 3.2.4.7 where it discusses the difference between the added RVA spares CLIN and the Incidental Material CLIN.

4. The draft RFP calls for “incidental materials” which will be CRNF. It is unclear what materials are to be defined as “incidental.” Is this intended to include all materials needed that are not included in item number 001 (e.g. those materials that are not replacement components)?

Please see updated PWS 3.2.4.7 last paragraph.

5. It is unclear exactly how to delineate the materials that fall into these CRNF CLINs, versus those materials that fall into the CPFF CLINs. Clarification would be helpful.

Answer:

Please see updated PWS 3.2.4.7 and updated pricing matrix.

CLIN X001/CPFF/ RVA CLS Annual Support:

Please see updated Section L 2.23 for assumptions for proposals on CLIN X001.

CLIN X002/CRFF/RVA Spares:

This includes all RVA spare end items. Please see section 3.2.4.7 of the PWS

CLIN X003/CR/Incidental Materials: This includes all unforeseen items that will require Contracting Officer approval. Please see updated section 3.2.4.7 of the PWS

6. Can options ###5 through ###9 be bid only once, instead of 5 times?

Answer:

No, we would like each option proposed separately since the time period when the option is exercised could have an impact on contract pricing.

7. If the Annual Support remains CPFF, consider changing these options (CLINs ###6 and ###7) to CPFF.

Answer:

These options will be left as FFP. Please see updated pricing matrix and Section 3 of Section L.

8. What is the expected use of the tablet? Anything beyond the ground and airborne vehicles?

Answer:

While there is a potential that the tablets could eventually be used for other purposes, that is not included as part of this effort.

9. Will an LPTA be used for this effort?

Answer:

IAW Sections L&M of the solicitation, LPTA will be the basis of evaluation for contract award.

10. Can the contract be a three year base with one year follow-ons?

Answer:

No. Programmatic issues and the use of 3400 sustainment funds preclude RVA CLS from being awarded in this manner.

11. Current RFP is for a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) arrangement. To accomplish this, doesn’t the contractor need a DCMA approved cost accounting system in place?

Answer:

Due to the unknown nature of this system’s maintenance requirements, the government feels that a CPFF is the correct contract structure for some tasks. A contractor does not need to have a DCAA audited or CO approved accounting system in place in order to bid on the contract. The contractor will be required to fill out a DCAA Pre-Award Survey so the evaluation team has an idea about the system that is currently in place. All interested offerors are directed to visit http://www.dcaa.mil/audit_process_overview.html or contact the DCAA Small Business Focal Point if there are concerns about the accounting system. The site also has an informative http://www.dcaa.mil/audit_process_overview.html presentation entitled “Accounting System Requirements” that contractors are encouraged to view.

12. Does the AF anticipate a date for an Industry Day to discuss this project prior to bid?

Answer:

While a formal industry day will not be held, the government welcomes contractor interactions up to the point that a formal solicitation is released. Any information shared with one contractor during these interactions that is beneficial to all parties will be posted for public dissemination on FedBizOpps.

13. This solicitation currently is being considered with a NAICS Code Assignment of 561621. Is this the most appropriate?

The Air Force will use NAICS code 561210 for this acquisition.

14. CLINs X004,Contract Data Requirements List. CLIN type is identified as "Cost Reimbursement - No Fee". Contract labor is required to prepare and submit contract data deliverables which is typically fee bearing. Labor in support of contract data deliverables is typically performed under the execution CLINs. Recommend changing the type to "Not Separately Priced (NSP)".

The government agrees that CDRLs are most accurately captured as a NSP CLIN and will structure the model contract as such. Since it is a model contract, the contractor has the right to propose a structure that they feel is most appropriate if they can back it up with sound rationale.

15. Has the government considered inserting an Economic Price Adjustment clause?

Answer:

No. The majority of this effort is to be performed under a cost-type contract structure that will allow for the reimbursement of all costs that are found to be allowable, allowacable and reasonable.

16. Will the government be Inserting any DD Form 254, Security Classification Guide, items?

Answer:

At this time, the government has not identified any items on this effort that would require a DD Form 254. This will be reviewed up until the issuance of any formal documents.

17. It is recommended that Firm-Fixed-Priced Development contracts for Options 2 & 3 (RVA Implementation for Security Forces Ground Vehicles & RVA Implementation for Airborne Security Forces) be awarded as Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee tasks.

Noted. The government directs all interested parties to see the updated CLIN structure on the draft RFP.

18. Please clarify Period of Performance of "1CAL Year". Potential development I design and implementation may take longer than 12 months. Shouldn’t the government re-evaluate the Period of Performance?

Answer:

While the basic RVA CLS tasks under CLIN 0001 are best supported by a calendar year, option CLINs may be better supported by a lot or each classification since they are jobs that may take more than one year.

Section L Responses

19. What are expected payment terms (e.g. time between invoicing and payment to contractor)?

The contractor will be allowed to submit cost vouchers at a frequency that will be determined at time of contract award. The contractor may also propose financing structures, as allowed by the FAR, for firm-fixed-price options that are included in this effort.

20. Section L, Paragraph 2.2: There is an apparent typo in that the first sentence is repeated.

Section L has been updated and the typo should no longer be there.

21. Section L, Paragraph 2.2.: Are there limits on contacting the PoC (e.g. “blackout” periods in which contacting the PoC is not permitted)?

The government assumes that this PoC refers to the contracting officer, but this prohibition extends to all parties involved with the source selection. The contracting officer will provide interested offerors with information about the program before the solicitation is issued. Once the solicitation is issued and prior to contract award, communications with offerors shall be conducted IAW FAR part 15.

22. Section L, Paragraph 3.1.3.1.: Are CDRL requirements really not to be bid as Section L suggests? Section L states that the CDRL CLINs (###4) are not to be proposed and will be established when requirements become known.

Please see updated CLIN structure that shows CDRLs as a NSP item. This does not make it subject to verbiage governing Cost-Reimbursement-No-Fee items.

23. Section L, Paragraph 3.1.7: Will a WBS be provided such that the third level is defined?

Or should we assume that it is the third level of section 3 of the PWS (3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.2.1, and etc.)?

The stated assumption is correct.

24. Section L, Paragraph 3.1.7.: In the instructions for creating a CPFF BOE, it requests a breakout of material, and requests additional rationale for major material defined as that costing in excess of $3,000. Does this mean that material that is known to be needed on the program should be bid as ###1? If so, what is defined as “Incidental Materials” in ###2 CLINs?

Please see updated Pricing Matrix and PWS Section 3.2.4.7.

25. Section L, Paragraph 4.1: This paragraph references “minimum” requirements. The contract is specified as LPTA in section M, so the assumption is that the minimum requirements are the only requirements. Is this a correct understanding, or will a priority be placed on exceeding the minimum requirements?

Please see FAR 15 - Lowest Price/Technically acceptable and verbiage in Sections L & M of the solicitation.

26. Section L, Paragraph 4.2.2: This paragraph references section B. It is unclear what

“section B” is actually referencing. The draft RFP clearly contains a section L and section M, but does not appear to include section B.

This is in reference to the Uniform Contract Format (UCF) Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices / Costs, and will be correct on the actual solicitation since Form 1449 will not be the actual contract format used.

27. Section L, Paragraph 4.3.1: What is the current version of SiteCommanderTM?

SiteCommanderTM S/W versions: Wing I, 1.6.25; Wing III, 1.7.14; Wing V, 1.7.15.

28. Section L, Paragraph 5.1: Will commercial contracts be considered for past performance as well as prior government contracts?

Please see updated section L & M.

29. Section L, Paragraph 5.2: Please define where Section J can be found.

This is in reference to the UCF Section J – List of Attachments, and is where all of the attachments to the solicitation can be found. It will be placed on FedBizOpps as part of the solicitation package.

30. Section L, Paragraph 5.4.1: Direct and relevant RVA experience is important to successfully execute. Consider revising to “specific RVA experience."

Please see sections L & M. Government reserves the right to accept analogous past remote visual assessment experience.

31. Section L, Paragraph 6.1.1 refers to “section A” which is not clearly defined in the attachments. Please clarify what section A is and if it was included in the draft RFP posting.

This is in reference to the Uniform Contract Format (UCF) Section A – Solicitation / Contract Form and will be correct on the actual solicitation since Form 1449 will not be the actual contract format used.

32. Section L, Paragraph 6.1.2 refers to “section B” which is not clearly defined in the attachments. Please clarify what section B is and if it was included in the draft RFP posting.

Answer:

This is in reference to the Uniform Contract Format (UCF) Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices / Costs, and will be correct on the actual solicitation since Form 1449 will not be the actual contract format used.

33. Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3 refers to “section I” which is not clearly defined in the attachments. Please clarify what section I is and if it was included in the draft RFP posting.

Answer:

This is in reference to the Uniform Contract Format (UCF) Section I – Clauses, and will be correct on the actual solicitation since Form 1449 will not be the actual contract format used.

34. Section L, Paragraph 6.1.4 refers to “section K” which is not clearly defined in the attachments. Please clarify what section K is and if it was included in the draft RFP posting.

Answer:

This is in reference to the Uniform Contract Format (UCF) Section K – Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors or Respondents, and will be correct on the actual solicitation since Form 1449 will not be the actual contract format used.

35. Section L, Paragraph 6.2.1 calls for “the following plans” and then only lists “property management plan”. The PWS requires other plans as well (e.g. Lab Transition Plan).

Does their omission in 6.2.2 here simply indicate that they are required by the PWS, but not by regulation or policy?

Answer:

Updated. Sections L & M should address this concern.

36. Include Past Performance Information Sheets, as referenced in Section L, paragraph 5.2.

Past Performance Information Sheets are now included as an Attachment in Section J listing.

37. Section L, Paragraph 2.19.2: "...the text shall be no smaller than 10 point font." 10 point font text is often too large for detailed tables, charts, graphs, and figures. The FISAC solicitations have allowed 8 point font. Recommend government revise to allow 8 point font.

Answer:

Noted. The FISAC program is greater in magnitude. The font requirement noted above will remain at 10 point font.

38. Section L, Paragraph 3.1.3.1, states that "The CRNF CLINs will be established when requirements become known, task orders are issued, and funds are available." This is not a task order contract; therefore "task orders issued" should be deleted.

Answer:

Verbiage removed. Please see updated Section L.

39. Section L, paragraph 3.16, "Estimating Techniques and Methods": Category rates have not been identified as a requirement for this solicitation. Revise to read, "Offerors shall use generally accepted estimating techniques to develop their estimates.

Noted. The government has updated verbiage to reflect this change.

40. Section L, Paragraph 3.1.9, "Pricing Assumptions": Duplicative of paragraph 3.1.5.

Removed. Please see updated Section L.

41. Section L, Paragraph 3.1.10, "Estimating Techniques and Methods": Duplicate of paragraph 3.1.6.

Answer:

Removed. Please see updated Section L.

42. Section L, Paragraph 4.2.2: The first two sentences are duplicated in the last two sentences of paragraph 4.1.

Answer:

Noted. Verbiage updated to remove some of the redundancy. Much of the information is repeated by design though in current draft.

43. Section L, Paragraph 6.1 includes subparagraphs that identify contract sections in accordance with FAR 14.201-1, Uniform Contract Format, Table 14-1. However, the solicitation is structured in accordance with FAR 14.201- 9, Simplified Contract Format.

Answer:

Noted. This UCF issue is addressed above and will be corrected in solicitation.

44. Section L, Paragraph 6.1.1 references Section A as an SF33 form. However the solicitation incorporates SF1449. Isn’t SF1447 more appropriate for this effort (reference FARs 52.212 and 53.214)?

Answer:

Noted. Contracting office agrees that a SF1447 is the appropriate solicitation instrument.

Section L has been updated to reflect the change.

45. Section L, Paragraph 4.3.1 references an integrated plan to address software updates to site commander and "other software related" to the RVA System. Please clarify and/or define what "other software related updates" include so the offerors can plan an approach and estimate cost.

Answer:

The PWS, Sections L & M have all been updated and should reflect the correct software related updates.

46. Section L and M, Past Performance Subfactor Two: Suggest that relevant RVA related system security experience that the Prime or its subcontractors have had be broadened.

Noted. Please see updated Sections L & M.

Section M Responses

47. Section M, Paragraph 1.1: Is it correct to assume that no weight will be given to technically superior offers, so long as a lower priced technical acceptable offer is present?

Answer:

Please see Section M for award criteria.

48. Section M, Paragraph 2.2.6.1: Is the estimated or Most Probable Cost, to be defined / justified in the Basis of Estimate (BoE)? If justification should also be included elsewhere please clarify.

Answer:

Please see Updated Sections L & M.

49. Section M, Paragraph 2.3.5: Should the proposal include the Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW) within the body, or as a separate, attached document?

Answer:

Please see updated Section L & M. A Contractor Statement of Work will be asked for as part of the CDRL after contract award.

50. Section M, Paragraph 2.4.1.1: Will RVA experience from the beginning of the program (more than 3 year old) be considered more relevant because it is experience with RVA, even though it isn’t within the past 3 years?

Answer:

Please see updated section L & M.

51. Section M, Factor two: Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the government to label non-verifiable or unknown past performance as “unacceptable” rather than “acceptable”?

No. Please see FAR verbiage regarding unknown past performance.

52. Section M, Paragraph 2.5.1.2 stipulates a requirement for evidence that the offeror will be able to comply with the limitations on subcontracting in accordance with FAR 52.219-14.

Please see FAR clause, part (c)(1) where it discusses the 50% requirement for cost of personnel used on the contract to belong to the employee of concern.

53. Section M, Paragraph 2.5.1: Is this based on a roll-up of the options and the base, or will the base and each option be tracked separately?

Answer:

The contractor shall submit information for the options and base at the same time. Total evaluated price will be IAW verbiage in Sections L & M.

54. Section M, Factor two: The referenced FAR calls out contracts for services, supplies, general construction, and construction by special trade contractors with varying requirements for the percentage of cost to be covered. Should it be assumed that all of the CLS labor is to be considered “services” and the materials will be considered “supplies?”

Some of the work to be done (installing hardware) might be considered to be a type of construction. For planning and proposal purposes it will be essential to understand how the AF will classify this effort so that it is properly accounted for.

Answer:

The government considers this effort to be a facilities support contract where the preponderance of the efforts is properly classified as services. As such, no portion of the contract will be considered a construction contract or subject to Davis Bacon Wage Rate Determinations.

55. Section M, Paragraph 2.5.1: Most items used for RVA are COTS items. How will cost vs.

commercial price be handled with respect to this FAR for these items (both procured COTS items and COTS items manufactured by the offeror)?

Answer:

Government does not completely understand interested offeror’s question. If a COTS item needs to be modified for implementation into the RVA system, this should be noted as part of a proposal cost.

56. Part Three - solicitation requirements, terms and conditions: This section stipulates that all solicitation requirements must be met. It then suggests that any exception must include rationale. Does this mean that exceptions may still be allowed (e.g. considered “acceptable”) with good rationale, or will exceptions automatically result in an “unacceptable” rating?

Answer:

This applies to issues that the contractor takes exception to. If the contracting officer feels that the contractor’s rationale is compelling, there may be an amendment issued to the solicitation to correct any information that is incorrect or not in the best interest of the program.

57. Section M, Paragraph 2.5.1.3 refers to a Subcontracting Plan, however, FAR 52.219-9 is not marked as applicable, nor is it a requirement in Section L.

Subcontracting Plan is not applicable since this is a small business set-aside. Section L & M have been updated.

CDRL Responses

58. CDRL Instructions and Master Listing Section: Paragraph 6.3.1: CDRL submittal procedure stipulates that unclassified CDRLs are to be submitted via encrypted email. Is there a particular requirement for the type of encryption to be used?

Answer:

Encryption devises only need to be used if classified data is being delivered. There is no specific requirement on the type of encryption device to be used.

CDRL Instructions and Master Listing Section, Paragraph 8: Data Accession List (DAL) stipulates that data requested from the DAL during the contract “shall be provided at no increase in contract price.”

The contractor shall bid to this requirement and deliver it in accordance with the CDRL.

59. CDRL Instructions and Master Listing Section, Paragraph 8: Is it possible to know what is on the DAL, and thus what is likely to be requested, so that it can be properly budgeted within the offer?

Answer:

Any and all data generated for the RVA program can be requested at any time. At the end of the contract it must be delivered as stated on the CDRL.

60. CDRL Instructions and Master Listing Section, Paragraph 8: This paragraph also suggests that contractor concurrence on a lack of price increase for requests for two per document is required. It is not expected that this would occur, however what action is, or should be taken if a request is beyond what is budgeted for and thus will increase the price?

Answer:

If the contractor ever believed that this were an issue, they would address the contracting officer for further guidance before incurrence of cost that they believe to be outside the scope of the original effort.

61. CDRL Instructions and Master Listing Section, CDRL A001: Will the final RFP provide a list of required/anticipated meetings so that they can be planned for and budgeted within the offer, or are those listed in the PWS (3.5.1) the only meetings required?

Answer:

Additional detail on the quantities and the duration of meetings as well as location is now provided in Section 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 of the PWS. This should make it easier to bid accordingly.

62. CDRL: A003/A009: Most CDRLs exempted paper delivery requirements on the DID. Two additional occurrences should probably be exempted: A003 DID paragraph 10.4 and A009 DID paragraph 2.1.Maintains consistency with the general CDRL submittal requirement

6.3.1 to submit them via encrypted email.

Answer:

The CDRLs have been updated to reflect suggestion.

63. CDRL Instructions and Master Listing Section, CDRL A004: Will the offeror be expected to draft the SOW after contract award, or will this be drafted by the AF and provided with the

RFP?

Answer:

Please see updated section L & M. CSOW will be drafted after contract award

64. CDRL Instructions and Master Listing Section, CDRL A005: It is assumed that this is the plan provided by the contractor to execute the SOW. Please confirm and/or stipulate any different or additional requirements for this CDRL – other than those described in paragraph 3.4.1 of the PWS.

Answer:

Please see updated section L & M. CSOW will be drafted after contract award

65. CDRL Instructions and Master Listing Section, CDRL A006: Are there specific details and expectations that the AF would like to see in this plan? Or is this intent to simply have the contractor specify how they will provide QA for the program? Is the QAPP the same thing as the QCP described in the PWS?

Answer:

The Quality Assurance Program Plan for CDRL (A006) is now noted in the PWS as the Quality Assurance Program Plan. Please refer to CDRL for additional information.

66. CDRL Instructions and Master Listing Section, CDRL A007: Are there specific details and expectations that the AF would like to see in this plan?

A plan that manages identified risks with RVA CLS Paragraph 3.2.8.2 specifies monthly reviews held on weekly IPT conference call.

67. CDRL Instructions and Master Listing Section, CDRL A009: Is this intended to be a monthly program status report?

Answer:

A monthly update on program status. See paragraph 3.5.1 of PWS.

68. CDRL Instructions and Master Listing Section, CDRL A011: Is this intended to cover software and hardware procured for new installations, or is a test plan for repair/replace components also to be included?

Answer:

Includes all required test plans for both hardware and software. See clarification in PWS.

PWS Responses

69. The references of “site commander” software should be referred to as “SiteCommander™” software (a COTS product brand name).

Noted. The Performance Work Statement has been updated to reflect comment.

70. The PWS reference indicates updates to several pieces of software, but does not specifically call out what is to be accomplished with these updates. Are the updates to include new features, capabilities or functionality? If so, please clarify.

Section M 2.3.4 Calls for the technical ability pertaining to software change and configuration control. This control is necessary regardless of how the software is changed.

71. No specifications for SiteCommander™ requirements are listed. It is the expectation of the

AF that the offeror will suggest requirements?

The bidders’ library will include a technical requirement document.

72. PWS, Paragraph 1.2, Option 2: RVA viewing feed to the ground security forces – will the final RFP include more detailed specifications for this option, or will it be left to the offeror to fill in the blanks (testing requirements and evaluation criteria, EMI/EMC requirements, environmental standards requirements, etc.)?

73. PWS, Paragraph 1.2, Option 3: RVA viewing feed to airborne security forces - will the final

RFP include more detailed specifications for this option, or will it be left to the offeror to fill in the blanks (testing requirements and evaluation criteria, EMI/EMC requirements, environmental standards requirements, etc.)?

74. PWS, Paragraph 1.2, Background-h describes a single antenna to support unlimited devices. The next sub-item (i) describes the need to support 4 tablets. If the tablets are not the devices referred to in (h) please provide clarification of what devices this is referencing.

The RVA viewing feed is to be received by 4 tablets simultaneously. The requirement for unlimited devices was removed from PWS.

75. PWS, Paragraph 1.2: Is item (h) referring to the ground system transmitting the video up to the air, or an airborne system retransmitting the video to another location?

The RVA system transmitting RVA video to both the air and ground tablets.

76. PWS, Paragraph 1.2: Is item (i) referring to the ground system transmitting the video up to the air, or an airborne system retransmitting the video to another location?

The RVA system transmitting RVA video to both the air and ground tablets.

77. PWS, Paragraph 1.2: Please provide the ground vehicle EMI / EMC and environmental requirements / restrictions.

78. PWS, Paragraph 1.2: Please clarify. Is this the antenna that communicates with the video feed? Or is it part of the wireless broadcast inside the airborne vehicle? Is it really unlimited, or to 4 devices?

Please refer to the Technical Requirement Document in the bidders’ library

79. PWS, Paragraph 1.2: Please complete the sentence or paragraph. It appears item “a” is truncated.

Noted. The PWS has been modified accordingly.

80. PWS, Paragraph 1.2, Option 2, Requirement k states: "60 vehicles per wing (threshold)

100 vehicles (objective)”. Since this is LPTA, there is no reason to identify objectives.

Please change to 60 vehicles per wing required.

Answer:

Noted. The PWS has been modified accordingly.

81. PWS, Paragraph 1.2, option 2 I states: "operation ground test of option 2 at customers location utilizing ground so the security forces vehicle supplied as GFE" please verify the configuration of the vehicles are the same throughout all wings.

Answer:

Assume all vehicles configured the same at each Wing.

82. PWS, Paragraph 1.2, Option 2, Requirement o, and Option 3, Requirement n states:

"Environment testing of proposed requirements to be tested to (i.e. temperature solution to include the following (shock, vibration, ranges, temperature, dust, and rain; MIL-STD-810G methods, Weapon System Specification S-133-128), etc.”.

Answer:

The bidders’ library will include a technical requirement document.

83. PWS, Paragraph 1.2, Option 3 does not specify the total number of Helicopters or tablets to be implemented.

Answer:

Total number of helicopters is 25. There are 8 at Minot, 8 at Malmstrom, and 9 at Warren. It will be referenced in TRD.

84. PWS, Paragraph 1.2: This draft RFP is the first knowledge of “SiteCommanderTM Software

Tablet Application,” “RVA Implementation for Security Forces Ground Vehicles,” and “RVA Implementation for Airborne Security Forces.”

The bidders’ library will include a technical requirement document

85. PWS, Paragraph 1.2: What is the manufacturer's current state of design and implementation of the requested "mobile application"? Will the current SiteCommanderTM SDKs be made available for interface on new mobile application if necessary.

The current state of design for the mobile application is in the preliminary concept phase.

86. PWS, Paragraph 1.2: Does the AF anticipate review options for commercial-off-the-shelf video systems to interface with the existing SiteCommanderTM to provide standard IP video configuration and COTS mobile applications.

The AF does not currently anticipate a change to RVA hardware or its configuration.

87. PWS, Paragraph 1.3: RVA CLS overview does not identify nor mention the new MAF

CCTV system that will be integrated and installed by December 2014.

Answer:

The PWS has been updated.

88. PWS, Paragraph 2, Applicable Documents, "Applicable Installation I System Drawings - JEDMICS”: Are all installation I system drawings available in JEDMICS?

Answer:

Available drawings will be provided in bidders’ library. Finalized and additional drawings will be provided after contract award.

89. PWS, Paragraph 3.1.2: The PWS states that unavailability due to commercial power outages are not counted against the AO. Is the AF interested in solutions that would reduce the unavailability during commercial power outages? Should this be included in the proposal, or addressed in the CDRL A014 opportunities to improve reliability, availability and maintainability after contract award?

It should not be included in the proposal. This would be used under CDRL A014 or an O&A above CLIN if government would like to know of opportunities.

90. PWS, Paragraph 3.2.1.3.5 (and CDRL A014): It is assumed that these are recommendations to be made after contract award and the any implementation of said recommendations would be a contract modification. Please confirm.

There is an updated pricing matrix that includes an over and above CLIN for identified CDRLs in PWS paragraphs 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.3.2, 3.2.4.8, and 3.2.1.3.10.

91. PWS, Paragraph 3.2.1.3.6, Maintenance Database Update. Current RVA system has the RVA Maintenance Trouble Ticket Database in place. Recommend the current RVA Maintenance Trouble Ticket Database be made an available tool to the offerors.

Answer:

The trouble ticket info will be available in bidders’ library.

92. PWS, paragraph 3.2.1.3.7: It is recommended that two items be added to this bullet list:

(1) RVA edge video recorder and associated software at each LF site; (2) RVA network video recorder and associated software at each MAF site (these video recorders are COTS components, however, software modifications to support unanticipated performance enhancing customizations have been completed under CLS in the past and may be worthwhile to anticipate for the future.

The PWS fixed to add these two items.

93. PWS, Paragraph 3.2.1.3.7.: Para 3.2.1.3.7 details, “provide support to software / operating systems through updates and administration to meet RVA performance requirements detailed…” There is ambiguity – specifically: are you asking the bidder to make software changes to the SiteCommanderTM software itself or are you asking for the bidder to implement patches and updates provided by the SiteCommanderTM OEM?

The PWS has been updated.

94. PWS, Paragraph 3.2.1.3.7, Software Maintenance, "All current RVA software": Please provide a list or clarify all current RVA software.

The PWS has been updated.

95. PWS, Paragraph 3.2.7.1, Controlled Documents, "The RVA CLS shall maintain and update all baseline and other technical documents" Provide a list of what "all baseline" and "other technical documents"

The PWS updated to include documents.

96. PWS, Paragraph 3.2.1.3.8: Clarify that the RVA Lab must be connected to the SMIC by dedicated landline or line-of-sight radio link.

The PWS has been updated accordingly.

97. PWS, Paragraph 3.2.1.3.9 (CSOW): As noted in comments on CDRL A004, it is assumed that the CSOW is simply the contractor’s explanation for how the PWS will be executed.

Please confirm.

Government CSOW requirements are clearly outlined in the PWS. This builds off of the contractor’s tech volume and formalizes their approach to the identified issues.

98. PWS, Paragraph 3.2.4.1: The hours of operation references a 24/7 response option for a single contact number. It is unclear if this 24/7 response means taking the call and then scheduling remote and/or on-site support as needed during standard hours of operation, or if the remote and/or on-site support must be immediately dispatched 24/7. Please clarify the intent.

Provide team during normal working hours, but be available for troubleshooting and trouble calls 24/7. The intent is clarified in PWS 3.2.4.5.

99. PWS, Paragraph 3.2.4.3: Should New Year’s Day be on the recognized holiday list?

Noted. The PWS has been updated accordingly.

100. PWS, Paragraph 3.2.4.5: It is unclear if the AF intends for the contractor to maintain an on-site response team at, or near, each wing or if a single on-site support team is to be maintained and then dispatched to the wing and site in need.

Noted. PWS section 3.2.4.5 is now updated with information pertaining to on-site response.

101. PWS, Paragraph 3.2.4.5: North Dakota is currently in an oil boom. Facilities costs are high as a result. Will the government make on-base real estate available to bidders to allow for lower-cost facilities?

Minot AFB does not have on-base real estate facilities available for this program.

102. PWS, Paragraph 3.2.4.5: No maintenance intervals are detailed. Detail the maintenance intervals necessary to perform this contract.

Corrective maintenance will be performed when necessary to maintain the system in order to meet the performance requirements in section 3 of the PWS

103. PWS, Paragraph 3.2.4.5: Specify facilities security requirement for Wing and Lab facilities. Warehouses at the Wings and the Hill AFB lab have sensitive (not classified) spares, equipment, manuals, computer files, and access to network equipment that an adversary could use to their advantage. Defining a level of security at those facilities consistent with IA requirements will help manage vulnerability risks and avoid a DAA de-certification.

104. PWS, Paragraph 3.2.5: Para 3.2.5 of PWS details that program critical information will be protected as outlined by the government. Please provide program protection guidelines.

105. PWS, Paragraph 3.2.4.6: RVA system supply chain management lists a requirement for maintaining a depot and organized spares. It is recommended that this depot and spares be maintained at locations near each of the wings to optimize the ability to respond to problems and sustain the system adequately.

PWS Section 3.2.4.6 is now updated with information on supply chain management.

106. PWS Paragraph 3.2.4.6 & 3.3.3.: Add a requirement for weapon level systems engineering specialties. CM and testing are adequately covered here or elsewhere, but as new parts are qualified due to COTS obsolescence or other reasons, nuclear hardness, nuclear surety, and environmental compliance evaluations may be required, including EMI testing at Little Mountain or like facility. Without an explicit requirement, new parts may be fielded that have not been properly assessed or tested and could negatively impact other parts or the weapon system.

The PWS has been updated accordingly and the info is in the TRD.

107. PWS Paragraph 3.2.4.6: Spares and inventory is referenced several times throughout the document, but we do not have a clear picture on what portion of this will be GFI and what we would be responsible to carry. We request this be more clearly defined in the Final RFP, so that we can provide the most effective solution to the Government.

Bidders’ library contains this type of information.

108. PWS, Paragraph 3.2.6.2 and CDRL A022 describe required certification and accreditation referencing EITDR, eMASS and IAM. Is documentation available describing these systems and the level of effort required to maintain them?

Please see the following Web sites for more information:

http://www.disa.mil/Services/Information-Assurance/EMASS https://acc.dau.mil/adl/en-US/509421/file/63729/SWGD027.doc

109. PWS, Paragraph 3.3.2 and CDRL A015 require feasibility studies without clearly defining what the focus of these studies will be. How should this be budgeted in the offer?

Please see the updated pricing matrix that includes an over and above CLIN for identified CDRLs in PWS paragraphs 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.3.2, 3.2.4.8, and 3.2.1.3.10.

110. PWS, Paragraph 3.3.3: Will the 3rd party maintenance contracts be counted as part of the percentage of business to the contractor, or will this be attributed to business provided by a subcontractor?

This will depend on the contractor’s business approach to the solution.

111. PWS, Paragraph 3.3.3, System Integration of Modification. "The RVA CLS shall utilize sustainment funds..." Clarify Sustainment funds.

Answer:

These are different government appropriations. 3400 funds will be used for the CLS maintenance efforts. 3020 money will be used if we exercise any of the fixed priced options.

112. PWS, Paragraph 3.6, Trainers: "The RVA CLS shall support the RVA trainers as well as the training of field operators". Please clarify / define field training requirements.

http://www.disa.mil/Services/Information-Assurance/EMASS https://acc.dau.mil/adl/en-US/509421/file/63729/SWGD027.doc

No specific trainer requirements. The requirement to support trainer equipment is part of the RVA System. Please see updated PWS.

113. Can we assume the existing RVA network infrastructure / architecture will accommodate the expansions identified in Option 1, Option 2, Option 3, and Option 4 without major software and hardware upgrades? Please clarify network requirements necessary to accommodate options 1, 2, 3, 4?

Assume RVA system in its current configuration.

114. PWS: Aging and part obsolescence are challenges for RVA COTS components, material, and unique RVA equipment. Multiple devices are beyond their End-Of- Life / End-Of-Sale (EOL / EOS) and others will soon pass those dates where support contracts with the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) will be unobtainable. Software and firmware support for these devices will not be available creating potential compatibility issues with other RVA network equipment. Suggest adding a COTS technical refresh as an Option.

The PWS has been updated to address this issue.

115. Please reference all T.O.s.

The PWS has been updated to address this issue.