FA8224-20-R-0009 FINAL RFP QA Matrix - 15 Jul 2020.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8224-20-R-0009
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding a solicitation for the Automated Test System Sustainment Initiative II contract. The solicitation seeks proposals for continued development and sustainment services supporting the Air Force Sustainment Center's mission at Hill Air Force Base. Services include test system engineering, configuration management, documentation, and logistics support. The anticipated period of performance is seven years with an option to extend to nine years. Offerors should propose labor categories and rates using the provided template and respond thoroughly to technical and past performance factors by the closing date. Clarification was provided around requirements for drawings, documentation in the sample task order, and application of system engineering processes.
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Section L
| AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEM SUSTAINMENT INITIATIVE II (ATSSI II) Final RFP | |||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response | |
| 1 | Section L, Appendix A: Downloading the PPI Tool | Item 3. States the “ppi tool” link should be under the “Attachments/Links” section. However, it does not appear that the “ppi tool” link was provided with the 6/30/20 RFP release. | Will the Government please provide the “ppi tool” link? | The ppi tool has been included in the attachments on beta.sam.gov. | |
| 2 | 2.3.1 | States "The offeror shall submit drawings that adhere to the ASME Y14 standard and provide Product Level detail IAW MIL-STD-31000B." | To meet the requirements in full of MIL-STD-31000B the government would need to provide the TDP Option Selection Worksheet. Would the government please provide the worksheet to ensure offeror is meeting the requirement stated in section L? | In the next sentence in Section L 2.3.1 it states, "There shall be one (1) example submitted for each of the following types of drawings:…” |
A TDP worksheet will be needed at the task order level for specific tasks that require drawings; however, for RFP purposes the Government is only looking for already completed drawing examples that would meet ASME Y14 standards. We are not looking for anyone to create any drawings specifically for this RFP.
| 3 | Section L, Appendix A: Downloading the PPI Tool | Items 15 and 16 discuss Saving and Closing the PPI entries. | Is it possible to Save and Close the entered PPI as a "Draft", allowing Offerors the ability to print, review and edit prior to selecting the Submit button? If yes, will the Government please provide the applicable Draft function instructions? | No. There is not a way to do a draft that I know of, nor do we need to provide any additional instructions. If the offeror wants a draft of what they are going to enter, they could build a spreadsheet that would allow them to see what they will be entering into the program. |
| 4 | Section L, paragraph 3.1 General; Appendix A: PPI Tool page 25; Section M | Section L, paragraph 3.1 states "For each recent past performance citation submitted, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the similarity to the ATSSI II scope, identified in PWS section 1.3, and magnitude. " |
Section L, Appendix A (Step 14, page 25) states the following:
"Explain how your experience on this program is relevant for each subfactor under the Technical Factor in Section M of the RFP, including any unique aspects that demonstrate relevancy in this effort. Provide evidence to support how the contract referenced has relevant experience and demonstrates the ability to perform the solicitation requirements as described in Section M of the RFP. As applicable, address how the proposed reference relates to each of the Technical Subfactors."
Section M, paragraph 2.3.2 states "Performance Confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance Factor Level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the ATSSI II scope, identified in PWS section 1.3, and magnitude taking into consideration the quality of those services." Section L appears to provide conflicting guidance by stating that PPI citations shall be assessed/evaluated against both “similarity to the scope specified in PWS 1.3” and “relevancy to each subfactor under the Technical Factors in Section M”.
Fulfilling both is not possible within the specified three (3) page limit for each past performance.
Therefore, Will the Government please confirm Offeror's PPI citations should address the relevance to each subfactor under the Technical Factor in Section M as is stated in Section L, Appendix A: Downloading the PPI Tool (specifically, Step 14, page 25)? The purpose of the page limit is so offerors will focus on the important areas of each past contract. Its not 3 pages containing ALL past contracts, its 3 pages allowed for each individual past contract. Offerors should be able to do this within the 3 pages. Offerors should use the 3 pages to place emphasis on the point identified in Section L.
Section L Questions Page &P of &N
Section M
| AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEM SUSTAINMENT INITIATIVE II (ATSSI II) Final RFP | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | M.3.2.1 | States "To exceed this requirement, the offeror may propose improvements in the baseline process..." | Would the Government clarify if the "baseline process" being referenced is referring to the configuration baseline process or the overall SE baseline process and where the definition of this "baseline process" can be found? | The "baseline process" the Government is referring to encompasses the overall SE baseline process which includes the configuration baseline process. The Government "baseline process" referred to is identified in the second paragraph of Section M, 3.2.1, "The System Engineering Process and Configuration Control portion of this element is met when the offeror’s System Engineering Process: describes the offeror’s system engineering approach to material solution analysis, technology development, engineering and manufacturing development, production and deployment; the offeror’s system engineering process includes relevant internal checklists, quality controls, configuration controls, decision points and stakeholder interaction; and the offeror explains how they will apply their system engineering process to the technical ATSSI II requirements." |
| 2 | M.3.4.1 | States " This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal contains a PWS in response to the Technical Sample Task Order SOO IAW PWS section 3.6.3 that shows a detailed approach complete with schedule, milestones, development processes, design phases, proposed man-hours, labor categories utilized for the project, assumptions, inherent risk concerns, documentation, drawings, and other relevant details." Section L states the same elements, but requires them in the response and not part of the PWS. Normally, the PWS would not contain items like proposed man hours, labor categories, assumptions etc. as they would be part of the overall response, but not the PWS. | Would the government clarify if it wants all of the elements listed in M to be part of the PWS or the overall Sample Task response? | The Government expects all the elements listed in Section M 3.4.1 to be included in the PWS the offeror will submit. Any portions of the offeror's response they feel does not fit into the body of the PWS (i.e. proposed hours and associated costs, etc.) can be included as an attachment or addendum to the PWS. |
Section M Questions Page &P of &N
TEP
| AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEM SUSTAINMENT INITIATIVE II (ATSSI II) Final RFP | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | Material Worksheet | Notional Material Dollars (Row15) is Blank. | Would the government clarify if the offeror is not supposed to populate this column, or should the offeror estimate the notional material and subcontract dollars for each year? | The offeror will only provide a material burden rate. The USG will populate notional material dollar amounts for purposes of the TEP calculation. |
| 2 | Travel Worksheet | Notional Travel Dollars (Row15) is Blank. | Would the government clarify if the offeror is not supposed to populate this row or should the offeror estimate the notional travel dollars for each year? | The offeror will only provide a travel burden rate. The USG will populate notional travel dollar amounts for purposes of the TEP calculation. |
| 3 | Travel Worksheet | Labor Categories | Is the Government able to provide labor category qualifications (education/experience/certification requirements) for each of the labor categories specified in the TEP spreadsheet? | When selecting Labor Categories for the TEP, the Government attempted to follow the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) as much as possible (ref https://www.bls.gov/soc/2018/home.htm for 2018 SOC system). |
In some instances, labor categories do not match the SOC, but were still considered relevant enough to include as separate categories in the TEP.
The Government does not intend to dictate labor category qualifications to the offeror as no such uniform standard exists. Rather, the offeror should propose their qualification requirements to distinguish and justify pricing variations in each labor category to allow for evaluation of the pricing. Education/experience/certification requirements for each labor category should be provided for evaluation and determination if the Government concurs that each such instance justifies the pricing level proposed by the offeror.
TEP Questions Page &P of &N
SOO
| AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEM SUSTAINMENT INITIATIVE II (ATSSI II) Final RFP | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | ||||
| 2 | ||||
| 3 | ||||
| 4 | ||||
| 5 |
SOO Questions Page &P of &N
Final Solicitation
| AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEM SUSTAINMENT INITIATIVE II (ATSSI II) Final RFP | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | Solicitation, Section I, FAR 52.219-4 Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns | Will the 10% price premium be added to small business offers that are NOT HUBZone? Does the Government intend to waive this requirement and remove the clause? | Per FAR 19.309(b)(1), "The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, in solicitations and contracts for acquisitions conducted using full and open competition." Since this is a full and open acquisition, this clause is applicable and will remain in the solicitation. |
Draft Solicitation Questions Page &P of &N
Basic PWS
| AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEM SUSTAINMENT INITIATIVE II (ATSSI II) Final RFP | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | PWS 3.1.2.3.1 | The 5th bullet states "Incorporate any recommendations by technicians that are within scope of this PWS." |
Would the Government clarify if the "within scope" determination should be for the applicable TO versus the overall ATSSI PWS which has requirements that may not be invoked in the applicable TO? Recommend changing "...within scope of this PWS" to "...within scope of the TO." The point of the statement is to instruct the Contractor not to perform work outside of what was proposed on the task order and/or contract.
If the technicians/Government request or recommend something outside the scope of what the contractor has proposed for a specific task, the Contractor must not perform this work without contract modification. Even then, the modification must still be within the overall ATSSI II PWS scope. The Government disagrees with the recommended change and the PWS section will remain as-is.
2 PWS 3.1.2.5.1: The last sentence states "Upon successful completion of the FCA/PCA Milestone, the Contractor can schedule the TPS Acceptance Test event."
| Would the Government clarify that "successful completion of the FCA/PCA Milestone" means after all audit discrepancies have been resolved and accepted by the Government? | The Government considers "successful completion of the FCA/PCA Milestone" to be the completion of the review with known audit discrepancies that will be resolved by Acceptance and verified as completed at acceptance. | |||
| 3 | PWS 7.6.1, L.2.3.2.1 and M.3.2.1 | PWS 7.6.1, L.2.3.2.1 and M.3.2.1 all require the offeror to define their approach for the SE Process including deployment. | Would the Government clarify that the scope of work for the offeror is to make the solution deployable (i.e. TOs, drawings, CPIN, etc. are prepared for incorporation into Government systems) such that the Government can complete deployment through the Government systems? | Yes, the Government concurs the offeror is to make the solution deployable. |
| 4 | PWS 7.6.1, L.2.3.2.1, M.3.2.1: | These RFP sections require the offeror to describe their systems engineering approach to "material solution analysis, technology development, engineering and manufacturing development, production and deployment." These are consistent with the first four phases of the Defense Acquisition System as described in DoDI 5000.02T and the Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG). The material solution phase, as described in these documents, is typically performed by the Government to determine if they are going to enter an acquisition. This phase concludes with Milestone A. The Government has passed Milestone A in releasing the ATSSI II IDIQ RFP. | Would the Government clarify what elements of material solution analysis they are seeking the offeror to address in their response? | The Government agrees we are passed Milestone A in the process; therefore, the material solution analysis of the process is not necessary at this time and the Government will not be looking for it to be addressed in the offeror's proposal. |
| 5 | PWS 3.1.2.2 | The PWS states "The Contractor shall design and develop all TPS to meet performance requirements of MIL-PRF-32070 and MIL-PRF-49503.". The offeror understands MIL-PRF-49503 is very specific to ATLAS and could be appropriate if developing a TPS using ATLAS, however there are many places where MIL-PRF-32070 and MIL-PRF-49503 would conflict if developing in any other language. | Would the government consider changing the wording to " MIL-PRF-32070 and if applicable MIL-PRF-49503" or consider completely removing MIL-PRF-49503? | The Government agrees and will remove the reference to MIL-PRF-49503. |
PWS Questions Page &P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .