Consolidated_ARTSV2_RFP_Industry_Comments_Responses_27_Jan_2016.xlsx

Comments Model Contract

Standard Form 1447 (cover page), Boxes 17-22 Request USAF provide clarification regarding what the intent of “Notice to Offeror(s)” paragraph means.

The Questions and Answers released to industry indicate the GFY17-20 Funding Profile is approximately 44%, 28%, 20%, 8%.

Recommendation: If it was USAF’s intent to insert language notifying industry that SF 1447 and Section G would not be populated with financial information until award, could the SF 1447 please be modified? In lieu of current wording in Boxes 17-22, recommended language below for USAF consideration:

“Notice to Offeror(s)/Supplier(s): Contract value and funding value information will be populated by Line Item on SF 1447 boxes 17-22 and Section G, as applicable, at contract award.

Subject to funding availability, it is the Government’s intent to award and incrementally fund this program. The current RDT&E Government funding profile for GFY17-20 is projected at approximately 44%, 28%, 20%, 8% respectively based on the Government’s cost estimate in Section L 1.1.”

The initial ARTS-V2 RDT&E effort is planned to be funded with FY17, appropriated 3600 dollars. The funds are currently included in the FY17 budget submission. As such, there is a reasonable expectation that funding this effort will be authorized and available upon enactment of the Authorization and Appropriation Bills for the applicable fiscal year.

As the Government has issued the solicitation in advance of available FY17 funds, Per AFFARS MP5332.7, the statement “Notice to Offeror(s)/Supplier(s): Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an offeror for any costs.” must be included in the solicitation.

It remains the Government's intent to award and incrementally fund this program. It is also accurate that the contract value and funding value information will be populated by Line Item on the SF 1447 and Section G, as applicable, at contract. award.

2 Solicitation/Contract FA8210-16-R-5000:

Section B, CLIN 0500 PRA Retrofit, Line Item Matrix CLIN 0500 PRA Retrofit, Section L Paragraph 6.4.2 Section M Paragraph 6.1.4.3 Request USAF to clarify the contract type for CLIN 0500 PRA Retrofit. Section B shows CLIN 0500 as Fixed Price, while Section L, Section M, and Attachment 15 Line Item Matrix all reference CLIN 0500 PRA Retrofit as Cost Plus Fixed Fee.

Industry needs clarification in order to bid and calculate TEP properly.

Recommend Government provide clarification and/or changes.

Section I Clause, 52.242-2, Production Progress Reports This clause is only applicable when production status reports are a deliverable requirement. CDRL D001 Production Status Report that was in the OCT 2014 RFP release was removed in the JUN 2015 RFP release and is not located in the Final RFP release or Amendment 1.

Recommend Government remove this clause as it is not applicable, and production progress reports are not a mandatory deliverable requirement (covered in FAR 42.1106 which states that Contracting Officers 'MAY' require production progress reports…)

Section I Clause, 252.204-7000, Disclosure of Information Request clarification for incorporation of this mandatory flow-down clause. As written, the release of any Unclassified information (email, drawings, videos, tech reports, subcontract Purchase Orders, etc.) outside of the ARTS-V2 prime contractor (and any tier thereafter) requires the written approval of the Contracting Officer whereby requests must be submitted at least 10 business days in advance of the planned release date.

1. Could the Government please clarify whether or not this clause applies to the release/transfer of data (e-mails, drawings, technical reports, subcontract data, etc.) between the ARTS-V2 prime contractor and all subcontractor tiers involved in the routine day-to-day execution of the program?

2. If this clause does apply to the day-to-day transfer of data among the ARTS-V2 contractor team, could the Government please explain in more detail how their review and approval processes/timelines will work so industry can adequately evaluate the potential cost and schedule impacts the Government data reviews/approvals may have on the timely execution of the program.

Request Government consider these possible alternatives to help limit the number of requests generated throughout performance:

1.) Reconsider inclusion of this clause (as there are other Ts & Cs in the RFP that pertain to proper handling of information), or

2.) Include deviation language that limits the clause to news/press releases, articles, brochures, trade association meetings, published papers, etc., or

3). Include deviation language that limits the clause to deliverable items and allows for information to/from the Prime Contractor to/from subcontractors (all tiers) any Unclassified information, regardless of medium, for purposes of contractual performance which would not require Contracting Officer approval in advance of release.

It is anticipated that the contractor will have access to or generate unclassified information that may be sensitive and inappropriate for release to the public. Therefore, per DFARS 204.404-70 (a), the clause has been included.

However, for clarification, the “Contractor’s organization” would include the subcontractors performing within the scope of this contract. Note 252.204-7000(c), the Contractor agrees to include a similar requirement in each subcontract under this contract.

5 Solicitation/Contract FA8210-16-R-5000

Section I Clause, 52.232-18, Availability of Funds Request clarification for incorporation of this clause as it is unclear why it was inserted into the Final RFP. Industry understands that in the event of contract award, funds would be obligated for EMD performance (exclusive of option awards, unless desired by Government). Additionally, Production Options would be awarded subject to the availability of funds and Government interest thereafter.

Request Government consider removing this clause as it implies cost/schedule risk associated with delays in the initiation of any/potentially all contract performance which cannot be predicted and/or bid in response to this RFP. Additionally, it implies inherent risk that EMD and/or Production dependent CLINs may not be awarded simultaneously, if at all (e.g., for EMD the PRA CLIN 0001 success is dependent upon award of the Travel CLIN 0004. This type of dependent relationship requires both CLINs to be awarded and funded at the same time). Industry needs to understand how much funding is coming, the frequency of said funding (e.g., quarterly? yearly?) and timing of funding (e.g., approximately 15 Oct). The initial ARTS-V2 RDT&E effort is planned to be funded with FY17, appropriated 3600 dollars. The funds are currently included in the FY17 budget submission. As such, there is a reasonable expectation that funding this effort will be authorized and available upon enactment of the Authorization and Appropriation Bills for the applicable fiscal year.

As the Government anticipates this contract will be chargeable to funds of the new fiscal year and will be initiated before the full funds are available (I.E. incrementally funded) this clause remains necessary.

It is worth repeating, the current RDT&E Government funding profile by fiscal years 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 is projected at approximately 44%, 28%, 20%, and 8% respectively, and while subject to availability of funds there is a reasonable expectation that funding this effort will be authroized.

6 Solicitation/Contract FA8210-16-R-5000

Section L Paragraph 2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits, Table 1, Volume 5, Factor 4 Past Performance The Business Relationships summary sheet(s) are printed as separate pages by the PPI tool from the individual prime and subcontractor PPIs. Do the business relationships count towards the individual PPI page counts?

The Past Performance Information tool generates all PPI printed sheets with single line spacing. Because there is no apparent way to change the font or formatting of documents generated by the PPI tool (undetermined font and single line spaced), are printed PPIs within the specified page count acceptable (i.e. 6 pages per PPI)?

Recommend that the Business Relationships sheets do not count towards the individual PPI page counts because they reflect the organizational structure and relationships for the ARTS-V2 contract and they are printed as separate sheets.

Recommend that the single line spaced, printed copies of the PPIs that are generated by the PPI tool and are within the page count recommended in Section L be acceptable format for the Past Performance Volume.

Recommend Section L allow for utilizing printed copies generated from the tool, to be turned into images whereby contractor proprietary markings, solicitation number, and required FAR clause may be applied per other requirements of Section L for volumes. Please note: if this was acceptable, a revision to Section L font format requirement of Times New Roman 12 and 1.5 Line Spacing would be required specific to this volume, so long as the information was still legible.

No, the Business relationships summary sheets do not count towards the individiual PPI page count. Table 1 will be updated to exclude the Business Relationships sheets.

Section L 7.3, states that PPI sheets shall be submitted using the EZ Source PPI tool, and that all other Past Performance Information for Volume 5 will be delivered IAW Table 1 and Paragraph 2.2. We did not intend for formatting to be included in the PPI tool outputs. Paragraph 2.2.2.1 will clarify the PPI tool output exclusion from formatting guidelines. This will be correct in the forthcoming Amendment 2.

7 Solicitation/Contract FA8210-16-R-5000

Solicitation Cover page and Section L Request Government provide clarification to proposal delivery deadline. Synopsis and solicitation cover state 4:00 PM. Section L states 2:00PM.

Request Government review and amend where applicable. Section L will be updated to state 4:00 PM. This will be corrected in the forthcoming Amendment 2.

Other Document Comments

Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) versus Statement of Objectives (SOO) requirements Paragraph 3.1.4, Note M The following CDRLs have deliveries during each of the production options and the shell production option: Test Plan – Radar Cross Section (GZ69, NZ23, QZ23, SZ23 and AZ01), Test Procedure – Radar Cross Section (GZ70, NZ24, QZ24, SZ24 and AZ02), and Test/Inspection Report – Radar Cross Section (GZ71, NZ25, QZ25, SZ25 and AZ03). Did the Government intend to perform RCS Testing using the Chicken Little Facility at Eglin AFB for every surrogate shell produced on this contract? If yes, there is a cost avoidance opportunity if this requirement is removed/changed as it will no longer require engineering support and travel for each unit (which is not likely to provide unique results for each unit produced). The SOO states that “In the case of RCS testing the Government will directly fund 2 rounds of system level testing.” However, to be consistent with the CDRL delivery requirements, NOTE M of the SOO should be clarified as follows: “…In the case of RCS testing, the government will directly fund 2 rounds of system level testing of the PRA and 1 round of testing for each RCS shell delivered under CLINs 0511, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001.”

Recommend Government provide clarification and/or changes. Note M specifically covers DT&E testing. Government Funding for DT&E is limited to the PRA, where all DT&E testing will be performed.

RCS Testing using the Chicken Little Facility is required for EVERY surrogate shell that is delivered. This is part of the acceptance requirement for each surrogate shell.

Funding for all testing following the DT&E tests are the responsibility of the contractor and must be included in the proposed cost to the Government for each item.

2 Att. 24 Section M

Small Business Evaluation (Ref: Section M 8.1 and 8.2, Att. 19 Statement of Objectives (SOO) 4.4.8) Are the specific percentages (5% SDB, 5% WOSB, 3% Hub-zone, 3% SDVOSB) referenced in SOO Section 4.4.8 intended to be calculated as a subset-percentage of the 11% Small Business requirement?

For Example: Subcontracted Value = $10,000,000 Small Business: 11% = $1,100,000 SDB: 5% of 11% = $55,000 WOSB: 5% of 11% = $55,000 Hub-zone: 3% of 11% = $33,000 SDVOSB: 3% of 11% = $33,000

Given the total amount of subcontracted value is set by each offeror, how will the government assess “Best Value” for companies that meet the 11% socio-economic small business goal by minimizing the total amount of their subcontracted work in order to lower their overall small business participation?

Given the Government’s desire to make a “Best Value” determination, would the Government give consideration to industry for exceeding the 11% total small business goal category, beyond “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” per DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table A-1 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings, and Section M paragraph 4.2.1? The example is correct, the specified percentages referenced in SOO Section 4.4.8 is intended to be calculated as a subset-percentage of the 11% Small Business requirement.

It is also accurate, that the amount of subcontracted value is determined by each offeror, and this may result in a wide variety of small business participation.

Per section M 8.1, Factor 5 will be evaluated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. Therefore, exceeding the 11% total small business goals would result in an acceptable rating, however, additional consideration will not be given.