TMQ-53_RFP_QandA_14Oct14.pdf

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Question # Question Government Response

1 Should approved and executed ACA’s be part of the proposal response package?

The Government will change the ACA requirement. The ACA requirement for the proposal will include the Contractor stating they agree to work with the companies listed in the agreement.

Once an award is made, the awardee will complete the ACA with the companies and it shall be inserted as an attachment by modification within 10 days after award. A solicitation amendment will be released shortly to reflect the changes.

If the answer to 1 is yes then what is the government’s current schedule for approving the draft

ACA documents? N/A

3 Does the said schedule work with the current proposal response timing? Yes.

The ACA document lists the Panasonic POC as B2BSAles@us.panasonic.com. According to

Panasonic this email address is not an actively monitored subsequently requests for ACA’s may not be responded to. We have been informed by Mr. Jeff Henderson of Panasonic Senior Area Sales

Manager-Air Force that we should be using airforce@us.panasonic.com

<mailto:airforce@us.panasonic.com> for all requests. Mr. Henderson can be contacted directly at

201-403-6826 Jeff.Henderson@us.panasonic.com The ACA will be updated to reflect the correct POC for Panasonic.

Our team is not certain the AN/TMQ-53 PMO is aware of the solicitation for services being requested by Hanscom AFB for CLS services on the AN/FMQ-22 system. Many teams providing solicitations response to the AN/TMQ-22 may be interested in also providing a response to the

AN/TMQ-53 program. The current response date for the AN/FMQ-22 is due October 15, 2014. Will the government consider revising the current due date on the AN/TMQ-53 solicitation to allow for adequate response time to both solicitations? A suggested revised due date would be November

10, 2014. This two week extension would allow for proper review and delivery time for both solicitations, while having minimal impact on contract award.

A draft RFP was first released for the TMQ-53 on 1 July 2014, allowing offerors approximately

10 weeks to review the draft documentation. The Hill AFB team was award of the Hanscom

AFB solicitation and included an additional 2 weeks response time. The RFP will have been released for six weeks by the due date of 27 Oct.

Regarding repair pricing – how will the government evaluate offers who choose not or cannot derive a price for repair of certain items? for example if our team researches and develops a repair process and methodology resulting in a repair action price of $100.00 for the repair of article “X” and another offer fails to research a repair option properly and lists repairs as $0.00 or not available will our proposed price of $100.00 result in our pricing being evaluated as “less price competitive” compared to the other offers?

If the government receives a proposal without complete pricing data, it may be deemed unacceptable.

Requesting clarification regarding Shipping/Freight. PWS 4.1.2 Transition of GFP states "The contractor is responsible for all efforts and material related to making the property available for use, such as payment of all transportation and installation costs, etc." PWS 6.3.2 Spares Tracking states "The contractor shall issue all replacement parts without cost, shipping charges, or fees to the user. All shipments of replacement parts shall include pre-paid return shipping labels and reusable packaging to allow the users to return the failed part(s) to the contractor in the same reusable container packaging. The contractor shall be responsible for all GFP return shipping costs." Please confirm that all shipping cost are Cost Reimbursable under CLIN 00009 Shipping.

PWS paragraph 4.1.2 relates to transition of the Government Furnished Property. All costs related to the transition should be included in the transition price. The contractor will be responsible for all shipping costs related to replacement parts to and from the users, which will be reimburseable under CLIN 0009. Note that only reparable parts should be shipped back to the contractor facility from users.

AN/TMQ-53 RFP

Questions and Answers

14 Oct 2014

Question # Question Government Response

Requesting additional information on potential storage requirements. PWS 1 Introduction states

"Currently there are 342 fielded systems worldwide. The number of systems fielded may fluctuate." PWS 6.3.1 Spares Management Program states "The contractor shall store, manage, and control all parts at a secure centralized parts storage location." PWS 6.5 Systems state" The contractor shall purchase additional AN/TMQ-53 systems upon receipt of additional funding and authorization via delivery order by the Government." Can the Government provide an estimated square footage requirement regarding the storage of GFP spares and complete TMQ53 systems?

It appears based upon the PWS that the contractor would be required to store non-fielded systems as well as new TMQ53 systems that are purchase until they are deployed.

The contractor will not be responsible for storage of systems that are not deployed. Those systems remain at the units. If the Government purchases new systems, they will be designated for specific units. The contractor is responsible for storage of Government

Furnished Property (replacement parts, two mockups, and some systems that may be shipped in for repair or refurbishment). GFP will continually fluctuate based on new Government orders and parts being shipped back and forth to units. A GFP list, current as of August 2014, was provided with the RFP. This is a snapshot in time, but the only way to provide offerors a way to calculate needed storage space. Offerors will need to make their own estimate of square footage needed.

The government’s response to question 62 from Industry Day states that: ‘It is the Government’s plan to renew the current accreditation prior to the current contract termination and the winner of the follow-on contract will inherit previously approved documentation.’ Does this mean that the government will seek to renew the current accreditation according to the Risk Management

Framework (RMF) C&A process, and therefore have the accreditation package updated to the new standards by the incumbent under the current contract? We ask because Scenario #3 from

Section L indicates the Windows 8.1/AOS 2.x upgrade would be re-accredited under the older

DIACAP process, and the DIACAP to RMF package transition would occur as part of the upgrade project as well, making it seem as though the re-accreditation process would not have happened under the current contract. Should we therefore include pricing to accomplish the DIACAP to RMF package transition and subsequent re-accreditation efforts as part of this proposal?

It has been determined that the AN/TMQ-53 will be reaccredited in 2015 using DIACAP processes. It is still unknown when the Government will mandate RMF; however, the contractor should be prepared to comply with whatever process the Government mandates for

Certification and Accreditation of the system. For clarification, the scenarios in the RFP are simply to determine the offeror's technical acceptability, and are not planned awardable tasks.