ATSSI_II_Industry_Day_QandAs.pdf

ATSSI II INDUSTRY DAY Q&As

Question: Do you anticipate posting a draft RFP?

Answer: Yes.

Question: There was mention of the Automated Test Equipment (ATE) Test Program Sets (TPS) sustainment facility in PWS paragraph 3.3. Is that a contractor facility, contractor facility on base, or a Government supported contractor facility?

Answer: It will be a Government facility to be contractor run with the possibility that it could transition to a Government run facility.

Question: In the evaluation, as a prime, should we make the OEMs subcontractors and part of the team, or should we bring up the relationship between our company and the OEM? How do you want to see that presented?

Answer: What the Governement is unsure at this time what we want to see specifically for subcontractors. For specific evaluation criteria refer to sections L&M of the RFP when it is posted.

Question: If you had subsequent orders, would the tooling/NRE costs be recovered in the first order?

Answer: Mostly likely, yes. The Government does not expect a lot of production type work, but occasionally will need additional Interface Test Adaptors (ITAs) or test stands.

Question: Will ATS requirements be separate task orders?

Answer: Yes. All requirements will be executed at the task order level.

Question: During the Industry Day brief only AS9100 was mentioned in the slides? Is only AS9100 required?

Answer: ISO 9001 and AS9100 are just examples of quality standards. The contractor and subcontractors will need to meet the standards listed in the PWS or equivalent standards to be acceptable.

Question: Was ATSSI I for the same time period as ATSSI II will be?

Answer: Yes, ATSSI II will have the same ordering period length as ATSSI I; however, ATSSI I will reach the maximum amount before the end of the ordering period.

Question: Do you have an idea of the main OEMs we’d be working with?

Answer: The Government does not currently have a complete list of OEMs. Here is a list of some of the main OEMs: AAR, Aerosnic, Avtron, BAE, Boeing, CACI for CBATS, HHH, Honeywell, LHM, MOOG, Parker, Pratt &Whitney, and TestTek.

*Please note that any contractor could develop testers and test equipment.

Question: Are there concerns of copywrite protection for reverse engineering?

Answer: Yes, with the understanding that if the Government has bought the item it is our business to do with it what we need/want. Therefore reverse engineering could work, and the Government has some protections for it but there may be some additional information we need to obtain before we reverse engineer.

Question: How many contractors do you have on the ATSSI I contract?

Answer: ATSSI I only has one prime contractor, CACI, but they subcontracted with several other vendors to meet our needs.

Question: Will there will be a place here on Hill AFB to set up the sustainment facility?

Answer: Yes, the Government would provide space on base.

Question: Do you have the data rights to have anyone else bid on it?

Answer: It depends on the tester. We showed some of the OEM testers during Industry Day to emphasize that the contractor will have to work with them. A good working relationship with

OEMs will be very important for the execution of the contract.

Question: Do you anticipate an incremental type release of the draft RFP as things pass through and get their approvals?

Answer: The Government intends to release the draft RFP as a whole package.

Question: If company A designed the test stand and everything is proprietary to them, do you want them to be on the team? In the subcontracting plan can we say outright we will work with the

Government to replace equipment, but in subcontracting plan we have access to all these OEMs if we need it?

Answer: As far as partnering with them, that is up to contractors, the Government will not direct the use of subcontractors. For specific evaluation criteria refer to sections L&M of the RFP when it is posted.

Question: For the sustainment facility, will that be located on Hill AFB or off?

Answer: The intent is to be on Hill AFB.

Question: During Industry Day contractor’s experience with PLM software and Teamcenter was mentioned. For Teamcenter, there are lots of different purchase options. Do you use the entire functionality of Teamcenter and its base or only a piece? Which option should we look at purchasing?

Answer: The Government has not approved a particular PLM solution of any kind and will not direct contractor’s toward a particular option. Some OEMs and Government program offices have incorporated Teamcenter, but the Government has not made an official decision.

Question: Will the hardware coincide in the same task order? Will it be included with the engineering?

What is the risk that we do all this work and then it goes down a different path?

Answer: The risk is pretty low that it will go a different path. Contract Document Review (CDR) gives the contractor drawings, but not the depreciable asset needed for CIP funding. Because of this, the engineering and the depreciable asset would need to be on the same task order. The

Government is looking for turn-key, full package solutions.

Question: How many offsite people do you have working over ATSSI I?

Answer: There is really no way for the Government to calculate that. The number of contractor personnel needed ebbs and flows as task orders come through.

Question: What are the different initial factors for evaluation?

Answer: The Government has not fully decided those yet, but the GFE mitigation plan, staffing plan, and

Contractor Bias mitigation plan (initially called the Organization Conflice of Interest (OCI) plan) will probably be part of the technical subfactors.

Question: Has the integrated master plan (IMP) been completed and accepted by the Government?

Answer: The IMP was completed and accepted by the Government as part of the current ATSSI I contract.

Question: CMXG seems to have data risks and you made it clear your desire to own data. Going forward, would it be an option for the tech refresh to be a cost reimbursable CLIN for reverse engineering costs?

Answer: It would be based on requirement needs. When reverse engineering is done, it makes sense to do a cost type CLIN. The Government will look into potentially adding cost-reimbursable CLINs.

Question: PWS 3.2 has a statement where it requires hardware manufacture that does not require non-recurring engineering services. If an item is being produced how would nonrecurring items be factored into the cost of the item, for example, tooling. If we’re producing hardware, would these production items be ordered over time or would it be a one-time order and that would be it?

Answer: It could be a one-time order or it could be a recurring order. The intent of this section is to notify contractors of build-to-specification and to not have Non-Recurring Engineerging (NRE).

Further information may be provided at the task order level.

Question: For the support at other AF facilities, would that include OCONUS as well? Would there be the need to set up offices at Warner Robbins or other places? Or would it just be TDY out to them?

Answer: The scope of ATSSI II is intended for OO-ALC with performance at Hill AFB.

Question: What was the ceiling of the ATSSI I?

Answer: $94M

Question: Who will be the decision authority when a TPS comes up that you want to support? Will you decide which station it will be on, or will that be a task order for what test station it should go on?

Answer: The ultimate decision is left in the hands of the Government. The Government would need input from the researcher to help make any decisions and determinations.

Question: What are the typical sizes of task orders with ATSSI I, dollar wise?

Answer: It varies. The Government has some task orders around the $100-500K range, and there are some between $1-6M. The average is probably around the $4-5M range.

Question: Is there a plan to transfer data from ATSSI I to ATSSI II?

Answer: There is a phase out plan per the PWS, which should define the transfer of data.

Question: Do you know if the CDRLs will be provided with draft RFP?

Answer: The Government plans to release the draft CDRLs as well as the IMP and draft sections L&M

(evaluation criteria) with the draft RFP.

Question: What kind of things would you need to possess in meeting quality requirements for hardware?

Answer: The quality standards are stated in the ATSSI II PWS.

Question: Would ISO9001 really apply to all headquarter operations? They are kind of set up separately, some are set up under AS9100, and ISO, but those business units don’t hold the certification.

For some of the work we’re blanketed under an umbrella for AS9100.

Answer: The contractor for ATSSI II and the subcontractors will need to meet the standards listed in the

PWS or equivalent standards to be acceptable.

Question: The TPS development portion talks about legacy information. During Industry Day it was briefed that there’s a lot of proprietary information. Will there be a way to get some of the information?

Answer: Potentially. There may be cases where the Government cannot get that information, but would still need solutions which could involve subcontracting to the OEM.

Question: For the spare instrument support program and the turn around on spare parts, do you foresee that being for every possible part in the TPS test stands?

Answer: That requirement was modeled off of something that is already in place. The spare parts needed would mostly be single point failure parts because if the part goes down it would be a

Mission Impaired Capability Awaiting Parts (MICAP) situation to support the test stands. It is a program the Government wants to put in place to rapidly respond to high failure test stand parts, but it will be executed as a task order, not as part of the basic IDIQ award.

Question: Is the size standard for the NAICS Code chosen a dollar amount or number of employees?

Answer: NAICE Code 541512 has a small business size standard of $30.0M.

Question: Are you looking for a traditional contractor to do the work and then compete at the task order level?

Answer: The Government is looking for a contractor with experience in performing test stand services to award as a prime and then complete the work at the task order level.

Question: Industry has concerns about how big of a facility the Government will need. Are you going to put facilities requirements in the contract? Are you going to define what the space requirement would be?

Answer: The Government does not intend to define the space requirement. The Government will be looking for evidence of the contractor having the resources required for performance.

Question: Regarding PWS 3.1, how many TPS systems could be required to be built in parallel?

Answer: The Government does not know at this time as forecasting requirements is difficult and dependent on funding. With the different organizations in the OO-ALC Complex, the contractor could have more than one task order going at a time.

Question: Is the color of money going to be such that you can do anything? Sometimes requiring activities have money for sustainment or procurement or both, will that be the case here?

Answer: The type of funding needed will depend on the task order requirements.

Question: AS9100 was mentioned in the Industry Day brief, but the PWS also mentions CMMI Level 3. Is that still a requirement?

Answer: Currently the Government does not require CMMI level 3, but it would be a plus for the contractor to have it.

Question: Would the sustainment facility be a new thing we’d be standing up? Do you want a full staff on site to immediately start addressing the issues you’re having now, or do you want it to ramp up as more task orders come?

Answer: The sustainment facility will not be done at the basic IDIQ contract award. It is in the PWS as a possibility for a task order during the ordering period of the IDIQ. The task order documents for the facility would further define the Government’s requirements for the facility.

Question: ATSSI I was recently awarded and now you’re going back to do it again. Why is that?

Answer: The current contract is running into an issue of reaching the maximum amount. There are a few more years left on the IDIQ, but according to the spend forecast, we are going to reach the maximum by early 2021.

Question: During the Industry Day briefing it was said that about half of the requirement is technical, and the other half is PMO. Will management be evaluated?

Answer: For specific evaluation criteria refer to sections L&M of the RFP when it is posted. At this point the Government intends to evaluate the PMO.

Question: Will the integrated master plan and report be released with the draft RFP?

Answer: The intent is to have it released with the draft RFP.

Question: A big concern would be proprietary items with an FPGA. Those would essentially be like a black box. Do you have a way to get that information?

Answer: At this time the Government has no way to get the information. If the contractor does not have the proprietary data it would be a difficult TPS to complete, and this may be where the contractor needs to look at subcontracting to the OEM.

Question: What are you looking at if you do go with a mandatory mix of small and large with multiple award IDIQ? Are you incentivizing participation of small to large or the other way around?

What incentives are you providing or what metrics are you looking for in percentages for small businesses, and how would you enforce those? Are you going to post this information to industry before you post the final Request for Proposal (RFP)?

Answer: There is a small business (SB) subcontracting plan on the current contract. It is about 5% because traditionally SBs have a hard time getting into test stands due to proprietary OEM data.

Based on the Government’s current market research we do not think small businesses are capable of competing as a prime for a single award. However, if this becomes a multiple award

IDIQ then small businesses may be able to perform.

Question: PWS 3.1 requires TPS development and re-host. What about quality assurance and qualification that may be required to get items through first article and to acceptance? Are there specifications for similar developments available so we can see the levels of quality assurance?

Answer: The Government does not intend to provide examples, but will provide a sample task in the RFP for evaluation purposes. The quality standards are stated in the ATSSI II PWS.

Question: PWS 3.3.4.3 – regarding tracking problems and issues with tracking hardware and software.

How are those currently tracked? Do you have a website or database that marks these? Is there a central place to see where the issues are?

Answer: There is currently no website or central place where issues are tracked. These details would be defined at the task order level.

Question: Will funding be for sustainment?

Answer: No, anyone who can support the testers to make sure they are meeting the mission requirements and has appropriate funding will be able to use the contract. CIP funds which are frequently used have their own limitations that will have to be followed.

Question: Are there any improvements you’d like to see from ATSSI I to ATSSI II?

Answer: The PWS reflects the improvements and lessons learned from ATSSI I to ATSSI II.

Question: Small Business subcontracting goals were quite low. Is that how you want them?

Answer: The Government does not have extensive SB subcontracting goals because of the nature of the requirement. There will be a SB subcontracting plan requirement in the RFP and the new goals will be stated there.

Question: If you go with multiple award, do you know how many you’d award?

Answer: No, not at this time.

Question: For the DMSMS support expected, can the prime bring their own idea and set of tools to the table?

Answer: The contractor can bring their own ideas and set of tools to the table, but everything is subject to Government approval. The Government is looking for the best solution, not just the prime contractor’s solution. What the Government is looking for is to be able to do research and development, and organization slides, with everything being subject to approval by cognizant stake holders.

Question: Have you considered separating out the program management support vs. the TPS build operations and supply?

Answer: The Government has explored the option of doing these as separate task orders, but it would depend on the Government’s needs at the time.

Question: With ATSSI I, was there a business case analysis (BCA) performed?

Answer: No.

Question: Something the Government touched on during Industry Day was in-house capability to manufacture. Is there an expectation that it would need to be subcontracted out?

Answer: It will be up to the prime to determine the best solution.

Question: What are you talking about with the phase in and phase out portion in the PWS? It sounds like its onboarding or out processing individuals. What is your idea of this?

Answer: It is for the phase out and phase in of old and new companies. The most applicable things to the phase in and phase out are making sure the contractor can obtain cerrtain OEM functions for contract support. The other part is how do you phase in and phase out for situations like the multiple vs single award? We need consistency to bridge between ATSSI I to ATSSI II. Especially and particularly if there is a transition to a new contractor.

Question: One of the things talked about in the bldg. 240 tour was the challenge with data rights. In the evaluation will you give better ratings for those that will provide data rights?

Answer: The Government has talked about having better ratings for data rights as part of the evaluation criteria; however, at this time we have not decided on the method. In the L&M of the draft RFP, the Government currently intends to give better ratings for providing data rights. The

Government advises contractors propose the type of data rights they will provide; however, this is subject to change. Contractors should review the L&M documents for evaluation criteria.

Question: Do you have a list of requirement priorities for the start of the contract?

Answer: There is an internal list. The minimum order amount will be the first priority for task orders as a minimum order is required per the FAR. Any other list of requirements will be provided to the awardee as necessary.

Question: During Industry Day current testers that are unapproved were mentioned. Are you interested in the ATSSI II contractor trying to push those across finish line and get those going?

Answer: A lot of those unapproved testers have issues that could be dealt with at the contract level, others are waiting for Government approval which is an internal issue at that point. The ones that are unapproved for technical or documentation reasons would have to have funding figured out before a task order could be issued to complete them. There are definite possibilities of needing to complete those approvals if something becomes critical for those testers.

Question: PWS 7.3 – requires the contractor to establish a quality control, such as ISO 9001 and AS9100.

Is that for both or either?

Answer: ISO 9001 and AS9100 are just examples of quality standards. The contractor and subcontractors will need to meet the standards listed in the PWS or equivalent standards to be acceptable.

Question: How would the technology insertion CLIN be applied and what types of tasks would come from the customers?

Answer: That CLIN may be more focused toward diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages (DMSMS) which was not as heavily addressed in ATSSI I.

Question: How many task orders have been placed on ATSSI I to date?

Answer: In the 2.5 years ATSSI I has been on contract 12 task orders have been placed.