Response to Questions
31 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Professional, Administrative and Management Support Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8217-10-R-5022
About this file
Response to Questions (24 Nov 10)
Text of this file
Sheet1
| 24-Nov-10 | |||
| Document | Page Number | Question | Government Response |
| RFP - Section B | 3 | The Ordering Periods reflect 1 Sep 11 – 31 Jul 16. The Pricing Table requests pricing for CY11 – CY 18. Question 1: Can you confirm that this represents a 5-Year Base Ordering Period with two (2) additional performance years? | This is a 5-yr base ordering period with a 6-year PoP in accordance with FAR clause 52.216-22, not 2 additional performance years. The need for rates in 2011 are to cover the 4 months (Sep - Dec) on the first task orders and the request for 2018 rates are to ensure the Government can adequately evaluate the 6-month Option to Extend Services as allowed under FAR clause 52.217-8(Aug 17 - Jan 18). |
| Appendix "C" | 1 | Appendix “C” states that a Safety Plan will be approved by 75 ABW/SEG (Safety Office) prior to commencement of any work described in this contract. Question 1: Is a Safety Plan required with proposal submission? Question 2: If a Safety Plan is required with proposal submission which Volume should the Plan be included in? | 1) No, the safety plan is not required with the proposal submission. It will, however, be required prior to work beginning. The Government recommends that each offeror prepare a Safety Plan prior to the award decision but it is not required for proposal submission. 2) N/A based on the answer to #1. |
| DD254 Attachments | Question 1: Is the contractor required to provide a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) for this effort? | 1) No, the contractor is NOT required to provide a SCIF for the MPSC II effort. | |
| RFP - Section B | 3 | The Period of Performance is 1 Aug 11 – 31 Aug 11. Question 1: After a review of the GFE that would be required it appears that it would be extremely difficult to meet the current Period of Performance (30 days). Will the government consider a Period of Performance of 1 Aug 11 -30 Sep 11 for CLIN 0001? | 1a) The GFE provided includes the equipment located at all of the current locations. That equipment will remain at those locations and therefore are expected to have a minimal impact on the transition. 1b) No, the government feels that a 30 day transition is sufficient and the current contract expires 31 Aug 11, driving the need to have the transition complete by the end of August 2011. |
| PWS | 39 | 2.1.5 Transition – The Contractor shall transition all PWS activities from the incumbent contractor to the awardee within 30 calendar days of the start of the initial task order period of performance. At a minimum, the transition shall ensure a successful transition of: 2.1.5.1.1 Mission Planning Central (MPC) operations and Government Furnished Equipment from its current location to a secure facility, with no more than 24 hours of MPC downtime. Question 1: After a review of the GFE that would be required it appears that it would be extremely difficult to meet the current Period of Performance (30 days). Will the government consider a Period of Performance of 1 Aug 11 -30 Sep 11 for CLIN 0001? Question 2: After a thorough review of the GFP required to be moved during the transition period it appears that it would be extremely difficult for any contractor other than the incumbent to be able to meet this requirement. Would the government consider changing this to 72 hours of MPC downtime? | 1) Addressed in question above. 2) The incumbent is contractually required to work with the follow-on contractor during the transition period and the equipment already provides a backup capability. The Government believes that there is sufficient capability and equipment for all offerors to successfully meet the transition requirement. |
| Section M | 46 | 2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Program Management Question 1: How does the Government plan to evaluate transition plan including costs of new contractors against a contractor who has teamed with the incumbent to provide a fair assessment? | The government will evaluate the transition plans for technical acceptability. Also, the government must be prudent in evaluating the total cost of a contract, to include transition costs. |
| Cover Page, Item 9 | 1 | Offers are due 6 December 2010, 4:00PM Question 1: Due to the size and complexity of this solicitation will the Government consider a 2-week extension thru 20 December 2010? This will allow the contractors to have adequate time to generate a compliant proposal package. | The due date for receiptof proposals will be extended to 3 Jan 11, 10:00 am, in a forthcoming amendment |
| Pricing Template | 3 | CLIN 0001 - Transition of Mission Planning Central (MPC) and Mission Planning Training facilities and equipment from current location to new contractor facility. Pricing Template Instructions: |
CYXX-MPSSF Worksheets
- Note: this spreadsheet is requesting the MONTHLY firm fixed price per location - Firm-fixed prices shall include but is not limited to:
--MPSSF services at locations as detailed in the PWS and the delivery order matrix listing attached to the contract --Lease costs for MPC and Mission Planning Training offices (currently located in Riverdale, UT) --Utilities for MPC and Mission Planning Training offices (currently located in Riverdale, UT) --Security system for MPC and Mission Planning Training offices (currently located in Riverdale, UT) --Cleaning fees for MPC and Mission Planning Training offices (currently located in Riverdale, UT) Question 1: Can the government confirm that the MPC will be a contractor facility given the FFP price per month will include facilities cost?
Question 2: Should the contractor include an off-site burdened labor rate for the services in the PWS?
| 1) Yes, the MPC facility will be a contractor facility. 2) The labor rate and all associated costs with providing MPC services shall be included in the MPC development/maintenance/administration lines in the pricing table | ||||
| Government Furnished Property | Question 1: Is ALL the equipment on the list currently in the MPC and Mission Planning Training offices (currently located in Riverdale, UT)? Question 2: Is any of the equipment on the list for any other location and if so where are they? Question 3: There are no desks/chairs/phones on the list. Is the intention that the contractor would provide these items in the new contractor facility? | 1) No. This is addressed in a response above. 2) Addressed in previous response. 3) The furntiture in the Riverdale facility was purchased by the government and will be passed on to the awardee. | ||
| Pricing Table SSR tabs, and Instructions tab | The instructions are: Fill in each cell, not grayed out, with the firm-fixed price per month for that combination of labor category and operations tempo. Question 1: Must there be a non-zero price in each cell, not grayed out, of the pricing table SSR tabs? If yes, then what is that price to represent? Question 2: Are the amounts on the SSR tabs of the pricing table to correspond to the FFP amount per month for a single SSR FTE for each location, ops tempo and SSR category? Question 3: Or is it to be the FFP amount for the number of FTEs in each category as identified in the contractor's proposed staffing plan? Question 4: If the latter, then should we show a zero amount for those labor category, location and operations tempo combinations for which we propose zero FTEs in the staffing plan? | 1) Yes. It must respresent the total cost to the government to order services for that ops tempo/labor category, NOT by individual FTE. 2) No. 3) Yes. 4) No, the government expects to see some value in each of the non-grayed out cell in both the Pricing Table and the Staffing Plan. That value might even represent a portion of a full FTE but should not be zero. The government intends to order services for locations listed on the Pricing Table, IAW the ops tempo/labor category required for the task order period of performance. | ||
| Pricing Table and Staffing table, all tabs | Question 1: Are the staffing plans and the pricing table linked? Question 2: Or is the staffing plan presented to establish technical acceptability, and the pricing table presented to establish a pricing baseline for each SSR type and functional category of the MPSSF? Question 3:After contract award will the government fund according to the staffing plan? Question 4: Or according to the needs and requirements of each location requiring SSR support? | 1) No. 2) Yes, the staffing plan will be evaluated for technical acceptability and the pricing table will be used to evaluate price. 3) No, the government will fund according to the established requirement (location & ops tempo/labor category) for a given period of performance (normally 12 months). 4) Answered in #3. | ||
| PWS Paragraphs 2.1.3 and subordinates; Pricing Table MPSSF tabs, Rows 20-26, Columns D and E; Staffing Table MPSSF tabs, Rows 20-26, Columns D and E | PWS paragraphs 2.1.3.2, 2.1.3.3 and 2.1.3.4 respectively define the requirements for FMS SME responsibilities, In-country familiarization training and logistics management. The pricing and staffing tables call for the contractor to provide the number of FTEs and an FFP per month for a defined number of “Country Cases” per month ranging from 11 per month to 36 per month. Question 1: Does each country case include all requirements for deficiency investigation, training, fielding and logistics management as described in the PWS? Question 2: Or might a specific case require only some of these elements but not others (i.e., a deficiency investigation but not training)? Question 3: If a case typically requires some of the PWS elements and not others (which implies each case is somewhat unique) then what is the basis for an FFP bid as required by the pricing table? Question 4: Does the training cited in the pricing/staffing tables correspond to the 2-weeks of in-country familiarization training specified in paragraph 2.1.3.3 of the PWS? Question 5: Are the numbers of country cases identified in the pricing/staffing tables on a per month basis (ranging from <11 per month to <36 per month) correct on a monthly basis? Question 6: Or are the numbers of FMS country cases indicated (ranging from <11 to <36) intended to be annual totals for against which the contractor is to propose a monthly FFP amount? | 1) Yes, each country case will require those functions/tasks, if they determine the need to receive them in a particular month. However, they will fund for the entire period of performance on that task order. For example, Countries 1-29 might pay for 12 months worth of support but only Countries 2, 3, 7, 11, 15, and 24 call the helpdesk during a given month. They are funding the potential need for services IAW the PWS. 2) Addressed in #1. 3) The basis for the FFP is the estimated workload outlined in the previous Q&A document. 4) The 2 weeks of in country training is captured in the functional area of FMS, not the Training Development or Training Sustainment. As a rule of thumb, the Government will not mix FMS funding with DoD funding. Therefore, the FMS and all of its associated requirements will be on its own task order. 5) Yes, there is the potential that up to 30 country cases will require services, each requiring varying degrees of support, during a period of performance. Refer to #1. During 2009, 27 country cases provided funding. In 2010, 26 country cases provided funding. 6) The numbers are intended to be annual totals which, in turn, equates to monthly support. The intention behind asking for monthly rates is to support the idea that this is a severable services contract and also provide the Government the capability to order services for a shortened period of performance. Historically, customers (non-FMS) were sometimes unable to provide full funding for 12 months due to continuing resolution authority (CRA), etc. | ||
| Responses to Questions 2 Nov10.docx; Question 43 | “A43: FMS pricing is attached in the draft RFP, 14 Oct 10. Historically, funding for FMS country cases do not all come in at the same time. The government intends to award one task order each year for the country cases identified at the beginning of the task order period of performance. For example, if funding is provided for 18 country cases the government will issue one (1) task order for those 18 cases IAW the Pricing Table <21 Country Cases multiplied by the number of months in the period of performance (not to exceed 12 months). If funding is then provided for additional country cases throughout the period of performance for the original task order they will be awarded as a separate task order IAW the Pricing Table Additional FMS Country Cases, even if they are the 19th & 20th country cases, and have a period of performance that will expire at the same time as the original FMS task order.” Question 1: Do the numbers of country cases listed in the pricing table, MPSSF tabs, column D, rows 21-26 refer to the annual number of country cases for which a monthly FFP price amount is required? | 1) Yes, depending on the number of FMS country cases that provide funding at the very beginning of the period of perfomance, the Government intends to order the coresponding category (e.g. 18 country cases provide funding the Government will order support from the <21 country cases. If, after the period of performance begins, and additional country cases provide funding the government will add them as separate task orders under the Additional Country Case rates. | ||
| PWS Section 2.1.2.2.9; Pricing Table SSR tabs, Column F; Staffing Table SSR Tabs Column F | “It is estimated each SSR in the field shall have either a low, medium, or high operations tempo, as defined in Paragraph 1.2 of this PWS. When supporting exercises or contingencies the work hours may increase. The operations tempo found in the Pricing Table is an estimate of the normal requirement. Use of the time and materials Surge CLIN shall be limited to support, outside of the normal requirement, which could not be anticipated by either the USG or the Contractor.” Question 1: Is the intent of paragraph 2.1.2.2.9 and the pricing table for the offeror to provide our estimate of the number of low, medium and high ops tempo SSRs in the staffing plan, and the associated FFP per month in the pricing table for normal operations? Question 2: Are the “supporting exercises and contingencies” excluded from this estimate of normal operations and thereby covered under the T&M surge CLIN? Question 3: If not, please quantify “exercises and contingencies” in a way that will support an FFP bid. | 1) Yes, the intent is to provide the proposed FFP for each ops tempo/labor category in the Pricing Table and the associated FTEs, or portion of FTEs, required to meet that ops tempo/labor category. The use of normal ops changes based on the ops tempo category. High represents an operational environment where the operational unit employees typically work 60 hours per week, Medium represents 40 hours, and Low represents 20 hours. 2)No, supporting exercises and contingencies is considered part of normal operations. 3) Support for contingencies and exercises does not guarantee the need to work extra hours. | ||
| PWS Section 2.1.2.1.3 | Mission Planning Training Question 1: What training materials already exist for currently fielded MPEs and will these materials be provided as GFI? | |||
| Question 2: How many new MPEs are anticipated to be delivered during each year of anticipated contract? | 1) Systems administration training materials exist for PFPS 3.3.1 SP5, PFPS 4.2, and Unix-Core. User training materials exist for currently fielded JMPS MPEs. All trainings materials will be provided to the awardee as GFI. 2) Please use the current fielding schedule to determine which MPEs will need new training materials. | |||
| PWS Section 2.1.5.1.1 | Successful transition of Mission Planning Central operations and Government Furnished Equipment from its current location to a secure facility with no more than 24 hours of MPC downtime. Question 1: Are the furniture items currently in the MPC Government owned items? |
Question 2: Or are they to be contractor provided?
| 1 & 2) Addressed in a response above. | ||
| PWS Section 2.1.2.2.8; Pricing Table, MPSSF Tabs, rows 27-36 | The PWS states “The government estimate for temporary coverage of government SSRs is one location per month for five (5) business days” Question 1: Since the PWS clarifies that the requirement is for one location per month how should we price the 10 different rows for SSR coverage? |
Question 2: Should we price one SSR for 5 business days in each row?
Question 3: Does the PWS mean one location for five days for each of the 10 rows?
Question 4: Or one location overall?
| 1) The contractors should price 1/month per customer. 2) Yes. 3) No. 4) No. | |||
| “Information to Offerors (ITO) and Instructions for Proposal Preparation”, Section 4.2.4 Mission Planning Central (MPC) Support Plan - The MPC Support Plan shall demonstrate to the government the offeror’s proposed approach to support and maintain MPC operation IAW PWS 2.1.2.5.1" | The PWS does not contain Section 2.1.2.5.1. Question 1: Please clarify if this reference should be to Section 2.1.2.4.1. | 1) Yes. The correct reference should be 2.1.2.4.1. | |
| Section L, Paragraph 4.2.3, Information Assurance Plan | It states “The IA plan shall demonstrate to the government the offeror’s ability to provide and maintain certifications IAW DoD 8570.01-M, Change 2, Apr 2010, and the PWS 2.1.4.7.” Question 1: Please clarify if this reference should be to Section 2.1.4.6. | 1) Yes. The correct reference should be 2.1.4.6. | |
| Section L, Paragraph 4.2.4, Mission Planning Central (MPC) Support Plan | It states “The MPC Support Plan shall demonstrate to the government the offeror’s proposed approach to support and maintain MPC operations IAW PWS 2.1.2.5.1.” Question 1: Please clarify which PWS paragraph should be referenced since we could not locate PWS 2.1.2.5.1. | 1) The correct reference should be 2.1.2.4.1. | |
| Section L, Paragraph 5.3 Relevant Contracts | It states “List of Offeror’s relevant contracts in the past five (5) years.” Question 1: Is this referencing the PPIS or is this a separate list in addition to the PPIS? | 1) This list is referencing the PPIS. | |
| Attachment L-2 Past Performance Information Sheet | On pg. 3, Section H states “For each of the applicable technical element (Schedule Management, Program Management, and Systems Engineering) under the Technical Acceptability factor in Section M, illustrate how your experience on this program applies to that technical element.” Question 1: The items under the Technical Acceptability factor in Section M (on pg. 46) are the subfactors (Subfactor 1: Program Management, Subfactor 2: Support of MPSSF, Subfactor 3: System Support Representatives). Please clarify what should be addressed in Section H and will a new Attachment L-2 be provided? On pg. 3, Section I states “Specify, by name, any key individual(s) who participated in this program and are proposed to support the instant acquisition. Also, indicate their contractual roles for both acquisitions.” Question 2: The MPSC II solicitation does not have a requirement for key personnel. Also the term instant acquisition has not been defined for this opportunity. Please clarify how we should complete Section I. | 1) The paragraph is corrected to read "…(Subfactor 1: Program Management, Subfactor 2: Support of MPSSF, Subfactor 3: System Support Representatives)." 2) The paragraph was removed. | |
| Section J Pricing Table, Section B CLIN 0001, and M.2.2.1.3.4 | Question 1: As there is no place in the pricing table for the total price of transition and there are no instructions in Section L regarding transition price, should Section B CLIN 0001 be the only place where the transition price is shown? | 1) Yes, transition price will be shown only on CLIN 0001 | |
| Section J Pricing Table, Section B CLIN’s 0003 and 0004, and M.2.2.1.3.4 | Section B CLIN 0003 is pre-populated with a total estimated cost of $59,500,000 and CLIN 0004 Material is pre-populated with a total estimated cost of $3,500,000. Section M.2.2.1.3.4 says “Travel (CLIN 0003), Material (CLIN 0004), and Surge (CLIN 0005) will not be evaluated as part of the TEP but will be reviewed for price reasonableness.” Question 1: As there is no place in the pricing table for an estimate for CLINs 0003 and 0004 and there are no instructions in Section L regarding the pricing of Travel or Materials, what should the contractor submit to show “price reasonableness”? | The amounts shown in CLINs 0003 and 0004 are Government estimates of what will be required over the life of the contract. Price reasonableness will be established at the task order level for these CLINs | |
| Section J Pricing Table Instructions tab, Section B CLIN’s 0003 and 0004, and M.2.2.1.3.4 | Reference: Section J Pricing Table Instructions tab, Section B CLIN’s 0003 and 0004, and M.2.2.1.3.4 Question 1: Can the contractor assume that the following items from the Pricing Table instructions tab (assuming they are charged directly) would be covered in either the CLIN 0003 Travel and Per Diem total estimated cost of $59,500,000 or the CLIN 0004 Material total estimated cost of $3,500,000? -- Services for the SSRs located at various sites as detailed in the PWS and the delivery order matrix listing attached to the contract |
-- Inbound and outbound relocation costs-- Cell phone/pager/blackberry costs -- Materials and incidentals -- Differential allowance (additional income taxes resulting from foreign assignment, tax prep for OCONUS SSRs, and foreign income tax liability) for those contractor employees not granted TESA status under SOFA -- NM state taxes IAW Clause 52.229-10 -- DoD schooling or home schooling (other than Alaska and Hawaii) for OCONUS employees with dependents -- Shipment costs for one POV to/from OCONUS assignment location -- Field Service Premium Bonuses (FSPB) -- Living subsistence -- Transportation costs -- DBA Insurance -- Hazard Pay -- International Drivers license -- Passport costs -- Resident's permits for SWA SSRs -- Visa for deployed SSRs -- War risk insurance for contractor personnel -- Training classes for contractor personnel -- Lease costs for MPC and Mission Planning Training offices (currently located in Riverdale, UT) -- Utilities for MPC and Mission Planning Training offices (currently located in Riverdale, UT) -- Security system for MPC and Mission Planning Training offices (currently located in Riverdale, UT) -- Cleaning fees for MPC and Mission Planning Training offices (currently located in Riverdale, UT)
| 1) No. Per the instructions in the Pricing Table, these items are to be included in the FFP. | ||
| Page 10/11, para 2.1.2.1.4.3- “Fielding” | There is a difference between the 7 Oct 2010 Draft and the Final RFP pertaining to fielding of MPEs- some aircraft such as the A10-F22A have been moved forward to 2010, or in the case of the RQ-4 have been postponed to 2012. In 2011 the E-3 has been added and in 2012 the E-8 has been added. In 2012, All applicable AMC / ACC Tanker Airlift Special Mission (TASM) aircraft and HH-60have been totally omitted. However the airframes still reside on the master list under 2.1.2.1.1 “Aircraft Subject Matter Expert (SME) duties and Responsibilities”. 7 Oct 2010 Draft |
Fielding The MPSSF is responsible for supporting approximately 56 individual MPEs. These MPEs currently use UNIX-MPS, PFPS and JMPS. Contractor shall field and support these MPEs and / or follow-on mission planning systems. MPE changes are driven by aircraft Operational Flight Program (OFP) changes, weapon system changes, core changes (UNIX "Core", JMPS "Framework" and PFPS updates), Integrated Software Modules (ISMs) and Common Capabilities (CCs) changes, etc. This support may include on-site fielding, migration of old data, and initial or familiarization training for both users and systems administrators. The number of MPS users / bases varies with platforms. With JMPS, many aircraft are planning for nearly annual updates to their fielded MPEs.
At the end of 2010, the following platforms will be fielded on the specified mission planning systems below:
JMPS: F-15 C/E, B-1B, RC-135 and F-16 Blk 40/50, RQ-4
MPS-UNIX: B-2, U-2 & B-52
PFPS: All others By the end of 2011, the following additional platforms are scheduled to be fielded on JMPS: F-22A, A-10, F-16 Blk 30.
By the end of 2012, the following additional platforms are scheduled to be fielded on JMPS: All applicable AMC / ACC Tanker Airlift Special Mission (TASM) aircraft and HH-60.
The MPSSF is responsible for maintaining changes in the field to include hardware and software upgrades / modifications.
Final RFP
2.1.2.1.4.3 Fielding
The MPSSF is responsible for supporting approximately 56 individual MPEs. These MPEs currently use UNIX-MPS, PFPS and JMPS. Contractor shall field and support these MPEs and / or follow-on mission planning systems. MPE changes are driven by aircraft Operational Flight Program (OFP) changes, weapon system changes, core changes (UNIX "Core", JMPS "Framework" and PFPS updates), Integrated Software Modules (ISMs) and Common Capabilities (CCs) changes, etc. This support may include on-site fielding, migration of old data, and initial or familiarization training for both users and systems administrators. The number of MPS users / bases varies with platforms. With JMPS, many aircraft are planning for nearly annual updates to their fielded MPEs.
At the end of 2010, the following platforms will be fielded on the specified mission planning systems below:
JMPS: F-15 C/E, B-1B, RC-135, F-16 Blk 40/50, A-10, and F-22A MPS-UNIX: B-2, U-2 and B-52 PFPS: All others By the end of 2011, the following additional platforms are scheduled to be fielded on JMPS: E-3 and F-16 Blk 30.
QUESTION 1: Please provide clarification on fielding schedule and type aircraft supported.
| 1) The information provided in the 5 Nov 10 PWS is correct. | ||
| page 20 para 2.1.2.3.4.1, Technical Publications Duties and Responsibilities. | The 7 Oct 2010 Draft RFP included in bullet b.) included Program Management Reviews (PMR), In-Progress Reviews (IPR) and Critical Design Reviews (CDR). These have been omitted from the Final RFP. Draft RFP: |
Technical Publications Duties and Responsibilities Technical Publications is responsible to develop and modify Mission Planning, Technical Orders (TOs), Time Compliance Technical Orders (TCTOs), and supporting documentation for USAF Mission Planning systems per applicable directives. Technical Publications shall:
a. Act as the primary focal point for all Mission Planning tech pubs communication for fielded systems and maintain configuration control of the TOs supported to include modifications, baselines, updates, releases, lessons learned, and process documentation.
b. Review vendor provided documentation and take actions to tailor to MPS needs. These include Verification, Validation, Program Management Reviews (PMR), In-progress Reviews (IPR), Critical Design Reviews (CDR), and provisioning conferences.
c. Prepare briefings / communications to team members regarding Tech Pubs in support of fielding.
d. Prepare briefings / communications to MPSSF management and teams with regards to current and future MPS tech pubs needs.
e. Utilize industry best practices to develop quality technical publications processes and procedures.
f. IAW military standards and TO 00-5-15 create, update, validate and verify TCTO for all Mission Planning post-FQT software.
g. Create a TCTO documentation disk; provide a copy to CM and to applicable Government authorities.
h. IAW military standards and TO 00-5-1 create, update, validate and verify TOs for all Mission Planning hardware.
i. Create documentation packages containing work packs for all hardware TOs and the interconnect TOs, and provide packages to applicable USG authorities.
j. Create, update, and validate Reference Guides for legacy and JMPS systems.
| 1) No. The use of O&M funded personnel to support pre-Developmental Test functions is not acceptable. | |
| Final RFP 2.1.2.3.4.1 Technical Publications Duties and Responsibilities Technical Publications is responsible to develop and modify Mission Planning, Technical Orders (TOs), Time Compliance Technical Orders (TCTOs), and supporting documentation for USAF Mission Planning systems per applicable directives. Technical Publications shall: |
a. Act as the primary focal point for all Mission Planning tech pubs communication for fielded systems and maintain configuration control of the TOs supported to include modifications, baselines, updates, releases, lessons learned, and process documentation.
b. Review vendor provided documentation and take actions to tailor to MPS needs. These include Verification, Validation, peer reviews and provisioning conferences.
c. Prepare briefings / communications to team members regarding Tech Pubs in support of fielding.
d. Prepare briefings / communications to MPSSF management and teams with regards to current and future MPS tech pubs workloads.
e. Utilize military standards / TOs to develop quality technical publications processes and procedures.
f. IAW military standards and TO 00-5-1-15 create, update, validate and verify TCTO for all Mission Planning post-FQT software.
g. Create a TCTO documentation disk; provide a copy to CM and to applicable Government authorities.
h. IAW military standards and TO 00-5-1-3 create, update, validate and verify TOs for all Mission Planning hardware.
i. Create documentation packages containing work packs for all hardware TOs and the interconnect TOs, and provide packages to applicable USG authorities.
j. Create, update, and validate Quick Reference Guides (QRGs) for Mission Planning Systems QUESTION 1: In order to comply with “Technical Publications is responsible to develop and modify Mission Planning, Technical Orders (TOs), Time Compliance Technical Orders (TCTOs), and supporting documentation for USAF Mission Planning systems per applicable directives”; SSR involvement in PMR, IPR and CDR activities and the development vendor documentation is critical. Can this be added back into the RFP?
| 37 | The Solicitation states, “Information Assurance (IA) Plan – The IA plan shall demonstrate to the government the offeror’s ability to provide and maintain certifications IAW DoD 8570.01-M, Change 2, Apr 2010, and the PWS 2.1.4.7.” However, the PWS does not contain section 2.1.4.7. Please clarify. | 1) Addressed in a previous response. | |
| Section L, Para 4.2.4 (23.) | 38 | The Solicitation states, “The MPC Support Plan shall demonstrate to the government the offeror’s proposed approach to support and maintain MPC operations IAW PWS 2.1.2.5.1). However, the PWS does not contain section 2.1.2.5.1. Please clarify. | 1) The correct reference is 2.1.2.4.1. |
| Section L, Para 6.1.4 | 42 | Question 1: It doesn’t appear that the contractor’s cost model is required for proposal submission, can the government confirm? | 1) That is correct. Contractor cost models are not required for proposal submission. |
| Section M, Para 2.2.1.3 | 47 | This paragraph states the Total Evaluation Price (TEP) is for award purposes only and does not become contractually binding after award. Question 1: Does the TEP become the basis for Task Order proposals? Question 2: If the TEP is only for evaluation purposes what will the Task Order proposal be based upon? | 1) No, the TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. 2) Task order pricing will be based on the prices provided in the pricing table. Services will be ordered according to the customer requirement at the time of task order award. Proposals for services will not be required. They will be issued as pre-priced task orders. |
| Cover Page, Item 9 | 1 | Given the critical impact that the answers to several of our questions will have on our ability to complete the preparation of the staffing plan and pricing, and the importance of pricing as an decision criteria in this TA/PPT evaluation method, we respectfully request a 2-week extension of the due date of the technical and pricing volumes of the proposal. By extending the due date of these volumes the government can remain on their schedule for proposal evaluation while still providing offerors the additional time needed to complete pricing once all questions have been answered. | The due date for receipt of proposals will be extended until 3 Jan 2011, 10:00 AM |
| What are the current contractual requirements for Incumbent support to the incoming contractor during the transition period? Please specifically address the requirement to transition MPC within 24 hours? | Addressed in a response above. | ||
| In what volume should Attachment L-8, Staffing Table, be included? If this table is to be included in the Staffing Plan, Tech Volume, does the size count against the allocated page count? | The Staffing Plan file should be completed and submitted with Volume II, Technical Volume. However, it will not count against the page count. | ||
| Section L | Section L states, “The Staffing Plan file is attached separately and will remain as a separate attachment through solicitation. The Staffing Plan file will not be a part of the award package.” But no direction is provided for submittal of this file. Please clarify the Government’s intent. | Addressed in a response above. | |
| RFP | The Solicitation, 4.2.3 states “The staffing plan, using the Staffing Table in Attachment L-8, shall identify how the offeror proposes to organize and staff all positions to fulfill all requirements in the PWS.” However, the Staffing_Table (Excel file) as provided does not meet the Government Requirement for formatting. Please clarify Government’s intent. | The Government's intent is for offerors to fill in the table in its current format. | |
| The ordering process for services post-award is undefined in the RFP documentation. What is the ordering process that will be employed for this effort? | Orders will be issued unilaterally as pre-priced task orders in accordance with established pricing on the basic contract | ||
| Section I | SECTION I, Clause 952.225-0011, page 26: In this clause nothing has been checked for the Government Furnished Contractor Support items listed. What are the planned types of support the Government will provide the contractor? | This clause will be completed in an upcoming RFP amendment | |
| Attachment L-2, Part H. The instructions in Attachment L-2 part H state that offerors are to illustrate our experience "for each of the applicable technical element (Schedule Management, Program Management, and Systems Engineering) under the Technical Acceptability factor in Section M..." However, Section M 2.1 Technical Acceptability lists Program Management, Support of MPSSF, and SSRs as the applicable technical elements against which proposals will be evaluated. Request that the instructions in Attachment L-2, part H be changed to read: “H. For each of the applicable technical element (Program Management, Support of MPSSF, and SSRs) under the Technical Acceptability factor in Section M, illustrate how your experience on this program applies to that technical element. “ | Addressed in a response above. | ||
| Section L attachment L-4, page 9: On the Past Performance customer survey on-site performance requires the customer to address OP 4. Ability to understand and provide support for Air Force Operational Test events. Since all of the other survey question relate to more generic requirements – we suggest the following. “Ability to understand and provide support for service operational test events. Rationale: Since the incumbent had the contract for many years – our customers may not have AF operational test past performance. We do have many examples of how we supported other service development and operational tests. This would allow our non-AF customers to rate our performance vice stating non applicable. | No. An understanding of the AF Operational Test environment is important. Please keep in mind that that it does not have to be experience on the OT process strictly for Mission Planning Systems. | ||
| Section L, Para 4.2.3 | 37 | Can we assume you mean PWS 2.1.4.6 rather than PWS 2.1.2.7? | Correct. |
| Section L, Para 4.2.4 | 38 | Can we assume you mean PWS 2.1.2.4.1 rather than PWS 2.1.2.5.1? | Correct. |
| Section L, Para 4.2.4 | 38 | This section requires that we address the duties of a Field Administrator Point of Contact (FAPOC) duties IAW the PWS. The PWS 2.1.2.3.1 requires A member of CM shall be designated as the sustainment Screening Point IAW T.O. 00‐35D‐54; one primary and at least one alternate to ensure coverage. Screening Points shall review all new DRs for their impact on fielded systems, paying particular attention to high priority DRs IAW T.O 00‐35D‐54. What is the FAPOC and how does it relate to the sustainment screening point? | The reference to FAPOC was removed from the PWS. The correct title is Screening Point. |
| Section L, Para 4.2.4 | 38 | Because of changes made in the final PWS, the citation in Section L.4.2.4.24 for PWS 2.1.2.4(f) is no longer accurate. Can we assume you mean PWS 2.1.2.4.1(c) only? | Yes. The correct reference is to 2.1.2.1.1(c) only. |
| PWS, Para 1.2.9 | PWS 1.2.9 - The non-MPE definition does not seem to relate to the pricing sheet which mentions some servers, applications, and in some cases just a number. Are there other added definitions or references that could be added to the definition to better define the primary aspects of what is considered to be non-MPE type computer system. | The PWS will be updtated and changed to read, "Non-Mission Planning Environment (Non-MPE) - computer hardware, not identified on the certified MPE letter, on to which mission planning software is loaded." An example would be the Wing Commander's laptop loaded with PFPS. The SSR could provide the Wing Commander support for PFPS problems on his/her laptop. | |
| PWS 2.1.2.3.3/2.1.2.3.5.2/2.1.2.4.1.d, f.i,f.iv,i.vii,: | The listing of typical support as identified by workload assessments for the various RFP requirements and the MPSSF pricing sheets do not appear to be included in the RFP documentation. The Q&As released on Nov 2 provided detailed workload assessments based on industry questions and are not incorporated in the RFP documentation. What are the RFP workload estimates we need to consider for this FFP proposal? This is needed in order to provide a FFP for the contract. | The workload estimates provided in the previously released Q&A are correct. They will be provided again as part of the final RFP documentation. | |
| PWS, Para 2.1.2.4.1 | 24 | There is a requirement to maintain a VOIP system supporting up to 50 separate lines. Where is this system located? Location at Building 1515 or the Riverdale facility, or does it have to be developed? | It is currently located in the Riverdale facility. |
| Appendix C, B.1 & 2 | 2 | Appendix C, B.1 & 2, page 2: This stipulates that all mishaps be reported with specific information, IAW AFI 91-204. There is a specific format required as well as follow-on investigative information and submittal of contractor data. There is no corresponding CDRL for the reporting requirements. There is no corresponding CDRL. Will a CDRL be added to the RFP? | Yes, a CDRL will be added to RFP |
| PWS, Para 1.1.7 | 2 | PWS Section 1.1.7, page2: If Operations Tempo represents an average number of hours each contractor is intended to work per week (Monday – Sunday) and high tempo is 60, which section of the pricing template is intended to capture hours that exceed 60 as is common in theater? | Historically, the government has found 60 hours per week to be sufficient for contingency locations. |
| Should proposals include a total cost and/or a total cost for each CLIN? | Except for CLIN 0001 the proposals should not include a total cost for CLINs. A total for CLIN 0001, Transition, should be provided. | ||
| PWS, Para 1.2.8.5 | What additional responsibilities and qualifications are required for flightline SSRs? | SSR Flightline support would include, but not be limited to, loading a laptop, taking it to the jet for pre-flight and ensuring the system operates properly. No special qualifications are required for flightline support except those necessary to gain access to the flightline (badges, etc.). | |
| Attachment L2, Item “H” | States, "For each of the applicable technical element (Schedule Management, Program Management, and Systems Engineering) under the Technical Acceptability factor in Section M, illustrate how your experience on this program applies to that technical element." However, Section M lists Program Management, Support of MPSSF, and System Support Representatives as the three subfactors, not Schedule Management, Program Management, and Systems Engineering. Please clarify which set are to be used for Attachment L2, Item H. | Addressed in a response above. | |
| Section-J Pricing Table | States that SMEs will be located at Hill AFB. Is the Government open to other locations if the Contractor can show value in the move, while not losing capability? | No. The government feels the co-location of the SMEs, remaining MPSSF personnel, and the Government team is instrumental to the success of the government/contractor team. | |
| RFP, Section A, Blocks 9 and 11 | RFP Section A, Blocks 9 and 11: The proposal is due 6 Dec 2010 (Block 9) and prices must be valid for 120 days (Block 11) (5 Apr 2011). Contract award is not scheduled until July 2011. Will bidders be allowed to change pricing after award? | The RFP will be amended to include the requirement for pricing to be valid until the time of anticiparted award. Bidders will not be allowed to change pricing after award | |
| Section L Attachments, Attachment 2, Item H | For each of the applicable technical element (Schedule Management, Program Management, and Systems Engineering) under the Technical Acceptability factor in Section M,… Should the elements in parentheses be Program Management, MPSSF Support, and SSR Support? | Addressed in a response above. | |
| The current schedule of delivery on Monday requires shipping at least three days prior for non-local bidders to compensate for weekend shipping requirements. Request a one- or two-day extension on the delivery date for both the Past Performance Volume and the final proposal package to allow delivery on Tuesday or Wednesday (ship on Monday) rather than Monday (ship on Friday). | Proposal period extended to 3 Jan 11, 10:00 am. | ||
| Section L, Para 2.3 | We understand that the electronic copy of the Price Proposal spreadsheet must be in an editable and non-password protected Excel file (per Section 6.1). Please clarify if the electronic copies of the remaining proposal volumes can be submitted in pdf format? | Electronic copies of the remaining volumes (I, II, III, V) may be submitted in PDF format. | |
| Please confirm that the PWS Solicitation Cross-Reference Matrix is included in the list of front-matter items (title page, glossary, table of contents, etc.) and, as such, is not included in the volume page count. | The PWS Solicitation Cross-Reference Matrix is not included in the volume page count. | ||
| RFP, Section 2.2.1.3 | In Section 2.2.1.3 (Total Evaluated Price) of the RFP, the note at the end of the section states that “Travel (CLIN 0003), Material (CLIN 0004), and Surge (CLIN 0005) will not be evaluated as part of the TEP but will be reviewed for price reasonableness.” In the responses to questions on the draft RFP, the following answers were provided by the Government for questions 10 and 68b: A10: “No trips are expected to be priced into the proposal. They will be addressed by the CRNF Travel CLIN.” |
A68b: “Materials and frequency/duration of the travel are not predictable, which is the basis for the Government choosing to use a CRNF Travel and Material CLIN. Pricing for materials and travel will not be required for the proposal. They will be priced on the individual orders.”
Based on the Government responses to these questions, how will the Travel and Material CLINs be evaluated for price reasonableness if pricing in the proposal is not required for materials and travel?
| The amounts shown in CLINs 0003 and 0004 are Government estimates of what will be required over the life of the contract. Price reasonableness will be established at the task order level for these CLINs | ||||
| RFP, Section 4.2.4-23 | In Section 4.2.4-23 (Subfactor Two: Support for Mission Planning System Support Facility) of the RFP references PWS paragraph 2.1.2.5.1 which does not exist in the PWS. What PWS paragraph should be referenced in this RFP section? | Addressed in a response above. | ||
| Appendix C, Para 4 | In Appendix C (Safety, Fire Protection and Health Specification Industrial Safety Requirements) to the RFP, paragraph 4 calls for a contractor-prepared Safety Plan. The RFP does not contain a CDRL 1423 for a Safety Plan and no delivery schedule is provided for the Safety Plan. Also, the PWS does not address a Safety Plan. Please clarify the requirements for the Safety Plan and provide a submittal schedule. | No, the safety plan is not required with the proposal submission. It will, however, be required prior to work beginning. The Government recommends that each offeror prepare a Safety Plan prior to the award decision but it is not required for proposal submission. | ||
| Has a deadline been established for submitting questions regarding this solicitation? | It is requested that all questions be submitted to the PCO no later than cob 17 Dec 2010 | |||
| Section L, Para 5.2 | 39 | Early Proposal Information - “Each offeror is required to submit the information shown in the Past Performance Volume, for each relevant contract, 15 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals” Q: Does the Gov’t request the entire “volume” (L-2) to be submitted 15 calendar days prior OR just the past performance questionnaires (L-3, L-4, L-7) ? | The government requests the entire Past Performance Volume be provided 15 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals. | |
| If the entire Volume is requested 15 days prior, is the gov’t requesting 4 hard copies and 2 copies (per page 34, section 2.2) ? | Yes. | |||
| Are the bidders for the subject RFP expected to price the CLINs by CLIN? | Offerors are expected to price CLIN 0001, Transition. CLINs 0002 and 0005 shall be determined by pricing proposed in the Pricing Table. | |||
| Section L, Para 5.2 | 39 | In Section L, page 39, 5.2, the gov’t states, “Each offeror is required to submit the information shown in the Past performance volume, for each relevant contract, 15 calendars days prior to the dates set for the receipt of proposals” Q: 15 days prior falls on Sunday November 21st. Is Monday the 22nd an acceptable delivery date for the past performance volume? Q: Is the entire volume due, i.e., 4 hard copies and 2 soft copies? | Given the proposal extension, Monday 20 Dec 10 is acceptable for receipt of the Past Performance Volume. | |
| Section L, Para 5.2 | The gov’t also states, “failure to submit early proposal information will not result in the offeror disqualification” Q: If the 15 day prior deadline is not met is it still acceptable to turn in the past performance volume any time on or before 6 Dec 2010 4:00 PM? If the 15 day prior deadline is not met, will the offeror receive a lower past performance rating? | Yes. Answered in previous response above. | ||
| On the pricing spreadsheet, SSR Tabs, row 285, it states "Carswell ANGB, NM". To the best of our knowledge, there is no Carswell ANGB in NM. Does the Government mean Carswell ANGB, TX or Kirtland AFB, NM? | Carswell ANGB, TX |
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Response to Questions | — | |
| Response to Questions | — | |
| MPSSF Estimate of Hours.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Performance Work Statement | — | |
| Section L Attachments | — | |
| Pricing Table | — | |
| FA8217-10-R-5022 0002.pdf | ||
| Contract Data Requirements List | — | |
| FA8217-10-R-5022 0001.pdf | ||
| Response to Questions | — | |
| Contract Data Requirements List.pdf | ||
| Section L Attachments.docx | DOCX document | |
| Contract Security Classification Specification.pdf | ||
| FA8217-10-R-5022.pdf | ||
| Government Furnished Property.pdf | ||
| Performance Work Statement.pdf | ||
| Appendix C.pdf | ||
| Pricing Table.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Staffing Table.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 19
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .