Phase_1_RFP_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

RFP Document Reference

Detailed (Paragraph) Reference

Comment Recommended Revision Government Response

Q&A #168 - Section L

Paragraphs L

2.3.2 & 2.4.2 :

Submission of relevant portions of technical

Government Response: No. The Government requests the entire document per Section L 2.3

Recommend the Government allow for electronic submission of PWSes/SOWs for ease of delivery and verification of Past Performance. If hard copies are required, recommend the Government allow offerors to submit only one hard copy of each PWS/SOW as an Appendix to Volume I.

The Government has modified Section L 2.3.2 and 2.4.2 to address the number of electronic and hard copy requirements documents.

J-Tech II Offeror Software List

Current extent of Maximo deployment Please specify which Annexes use Maximo for procurement and maintenance.

All Annexes use Maximo for maintenance. The Government has not specified Maximo as a solution.

Q&A #147 Enterprise PWS

Enterprise PWS, Attachment 1, pgs. 1- 7, 1-8 Labor Cost Savings & Burden Rates

Government Response: Tasking is defined at Annex level

Would the Government please clarify how tasking will be defined at the Annex level?

The Government has modified it's approach to technical direction at Annex 1 to be consistent with the other 3 Annexes. Technical Direction that was previously issued via LOTD is contained in the Sub Annex requirements.

Where desired, the Annexes may choose to use LOTDs for some project specific taskings.

Enterprise PWS and Annex 4 PWS

Enterprise PWS

3.16 and Annex 4

PWS

A4.3.16.1

There is no Annex 4 TDD-16. System engineering (SE) requirement as defined in Annex 4 PWS is vague.

Request clarification of what level of Annex 4 SE is required and for what systems. How does Annex 4 SE relate to Enterprise-level SE, if at all? What level of support is required? Who is responsible for SE and for what systems?

All levels of SE are required from complete End-to-End SE to supporting SE activities. SE support is required at the Annex 4 level as well as inter-Annex and at the Enterprise level in support of System-of-Systems integration. The Government is ultimately responsible for SE but may delegate certain levels of responsibility for SE support for individual and/or collective groups of systems either solely contained with the Annex 4 PWS or at the Enterprise Level

PWS.

L-1 Attachment L-1 Attachment, all Annexes

The Government provided a PWS hours breakout of O&M vs. Sustainment (e.g., PWS

3.8.0 vs. 3.8.3) for two areas within Annex 1 (PWS 3.8, 3.9).

Will the Government provide that same level of information for the remaining Annex 1 PWS sections and all other Annexes that pertain to

OM&S (PWS 3.2-3.15)?

No, the Government does not intend to provide additional detail.

Section L L.2.1.4.2.5 RFP Questions

RFP Question due date is 6 August 2015. Will the Government allow offerors to submit questions on Phase 2 requirements after the release of the Phase 2 Solicitation Amendment?

Yes, the Government will accept questions on requirements that were not previously released as part of Phase 1 during the Phase 2 Pre-proposal Conference.

Section L L.3.5.2.6 Schedule of Hours by Labor Skill Mix

Section L.3.5.2.6 states: "The Offeror shall submit a schedule showing total proposed hours summarized by labor skill mix in the Cost Model Worksheet (L-8 Attachment) on the tab(s) labeled 'PWS Hour Matrix Location 1-4.5' by labor classification. This schedule is to include (but separately identify) subcontractor(s) and inter- divisional transfer(s) hours."

Will the Government please define what is meant by the term "interdivisional" in this context?

Examples include but are not limited to: parent companies, subsidiaries, divisions, departments.

Annex 3 PWS Annex 3 PWS 3.16

Annex 3 PWS requirements for 3.16. There is no 3rd level Annex 3 PWS for 3.16. Can the offeror assume that 3.16 covers all requirements for end-to-end SE, project management, software engineering and configuration management?

Yes, the Offeror can assume that all elements of SE are required for Annex 3; A reference to link the requirement to the Enterprise PWS Section

3.16 (U) Systems Engineering will be added to the Annex 3 PWS.

J-Tech II Phase 1 RFP Comment/Recommendation Matrix

RFP Document Reference

Detailed (Paragraph) Reference

Comment Recommended Revision Government Response

J-Tech II Phase 1 RFP Comment/Recommendation Matrix

Enterprise PWS PWS 4.1.1.f Plans for assuming accountability for Government Furnished Property (GFP) and Shared Used Property (SUP).

SUP is not formally transferred from the Government to the contractor via 1149. When used by the contractor, the contractor is responsible to ensure proper use, employee training, safekeeping, and reporting of loss/damage to the Government.

Recommend rewording the requirement to state:

"Plans for assuming accountability for GFP and to ensure proper use, employee training, safekeeping, and reporting of loss/damage of SUP."

Concur with recommendation; Enterprise-level PWS will be updated.

A1 PWS,

A1E.3.3.c;

A1E.3.14.6;

A1O.3.17.4.f;

A1O.3.17.6.b;

A1M.3.17.4.c;

A1T.3.9.6;

A1T.3.11.6

A1E.3.3.c (U):

The contractor shall provide support during a nominal 8-hour work day, 5-day work week, with occasional surges to meet mission requirements.

Mission requirements will dictate the day/time requirements and may result in evening and weekend support as part of the 40-hour work week.

The statement at A1E.3.3.c is repeated at several points in the A1 PWS as noted in column B. The intent of this statement may be to reduce overtime by changing an employee's normal work hours based on mission requirements. This cannot be done with full-time non- exempt employees in California (if this is the intent).

Recommend rewording the requirement to: "The contractor shall provide support during a nominal 8-hour work day, 5-day work week, with occasional surges to meet mission requirements. Mission requirements will dictate the day/time requirements and may result in evening and weekend support."

Concur with recommendation; Annex 1 PWS will be modified for clarification of mission support requirements. There is certainly no intent to conflict with applicable labor laws.

A1 PWS, A1.3.7 A1.3.7 (U) Annex 1 has signal collection/monitoring/measuring requirements in Sub-Annex E & W, per A1E.3.7 and A1W.3.7; however, there is no definition of an Annex E requirement in

A1 TDD-07 SIGNAL COLLECTION/ MONITORING/MEASURING.

Please define the Sub-Annex E requirement in A1 TDD-07 or correct the A1 PWS A1E.3.7 reference.

Annex 1 is revising the TDDs in preparation for contract award to ensure the appropriate level of system and sub-system specification. The intent is to minimize contracting actions as equipment is upgraded and/or replaced. The specific equipment will be tracked in the Enterprise Maintenance Management System. For proposal purposes, the Offeror should consider the equipment as listed.

TDD for Annex 1

(A1) 412 TW

(Telemetry Systems TDD-08)

TDD for Annex 1

(A1) 412 TW

(Telemetry Systems TDD- 08)

There is no reference to the fixed and articulated telemetry tracker systems located at the 411 FLTS (F-22) and the 461 FLTS (F-35). The telemetry trackers at the USAF Test Pilot School are listed in the TDD for Annex 1 (A1) 412 TW (Mission Control Systems TDD-09)

Provide support references for the 411 FLTS and 461 FLTS Telemetry Systems in the TDD and move the USAF TPS Telemetry Systems to TDD- 08.

Annex 1 is revising the TDDs in preparation for contract award to ensure the appropriate level of system and sub-system specification. The intent is to minimize contracting actions as equipment is upgraded and/or replaced. The specific equipment will be tracked in the Enterprise Maintenance Management System. For proposal purposes, the Offeror should consider the equipment as listed.

RFP Document Reference

Detailed (Paragraph) Reference

Comment Recommended Revision Government Response

J-Tech II Phase 1 RFP Comment/Recommendation Matrix

TDD for Annex 1

(A1) 412 TW

(Mission Control Systems TDD-09)

Heading 3.6 Situational Awareness Systems

The number and types of Test Evaluation Command and Control System (TECCS) client and server systems indicate that TECCS version 4 is the fielded software version. The recently received Q&A from the DRFP indicated that we are to assume that TECCS version 5 is the fielded version.

Please update the TDD to reflect the actual or expected version 5 hardware platform.

Annex 1 is revising the TDDs in preparation for contract award to ensure the appropriate level of system and sub-system specification. The intent is to minimize contracting actions as equipment is upgraded and/or replaced. The specific equipment will be tracked in the Enterprise Maintenance Management System. For proposal purposes, the Offeror should consider the equipment as listed.

TDD for Annex 1

(A1) 412 TW

(Communication Systems TDD-11)

2.1 Range Data

and Transmission System (RDATS) Network Topology

The diagram of the RDATS shows a Juniper Networks MX480 core system with some Juniper Networks edge equipment. The 3.1 RDATS equipment table indicates the core is a Marconi ASX 1200 (ATM over SoNET).

Please update the RDATS diagram or the description of the RDATS or specify that one is current and one is future.

Annex 1 is revising the TDDs in preparation for contract award to ensure the appropriate level of system and sub-system specification. The intent is to minimize contracting actions as equipment is upgraded and/or replaced. The specific equipment will be tracked in the Enterprise Maintenance Management System. For proposal purposes, the Offeror should consider the equipment as listed.

TDD for Annex 1

(A1) 412 TW

(Communication Systems TDD-11)

3.0 MAJOR

SUBSYSTEMS/C

OMPONENTS:

3.6 Fiber Optics;

3.7 Combined

Test Force – Special Use Networks; 3.10 Situational Awareness Network

Equipment Information is missing from the designated headings. Please provide equipment information. Annex 1 is revising the TDDs in preparation for contract award to ensure the appropriate level of system and sub-system specification. The intent is to minimize contracting actions as equipment is upgraded and/or replaced. The specific equipment will be tracked in the Enterprise Maintenance Management System. For proposal purposes, the equipment listed is deemed sufficient to allow Offeror's to develop an understanding of the workload.

TDD for Annex 1

(A1) 412 TW

(Communication Systems TDD-11)

3.0 MAJOR

SUBSYSTEMS/C

OMPONENTS:

3.8 Communications Security

(COMSEC)

Equipment

The 412 RANS has approximately 200 KG-135A Decryption Units and no KG-68 or 68B units in service. The CTF areas should account for ground based decryption units.

Please verify COMSEC equipment numbers and consolidate COMSEC equipment in TDD-11.

Annex 1 is revising the TDDs in preparation for contract award to ensure the appropriate level of system and sub-system specification. The intent is to minimize contracting actions as equipment is upgraded and/or replaced. The specific equipment will be tracked in the Enterprise Maintenance Management System. For proposal purposes, the Offeror should consider the equipment as listed.

RFP Document Reference

Detailed (Paragraph) Reference

Comment Recommended Revision Government Response

J-Tech II Phase 1 RFP Comment/Recommendation Matrix

Section L L. 2.5.2.2.1 In the draft RFP dated 18 March 2015, Section H provided detailed language on foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI) requirements and asked offerors to submit a FCL letter or a standard form 328. This language has been removed from the final RFP; however, new language has been included in section L.2.5.2.2.1 requiring offerors to "provide evidence that it and its subcontractors/teammates/partners are not foreign owned."

The term “foreign owned” is not defined nor does the RFP address what evidence would be sufficient. We have interpreted that the requirements in Section L.2.5.2.2.1 are related to a company's ability to obtain an FCL and possess classified information; as such, we have assumed that providing evidence of the offeror’s FCL CAGE Code will constitute sufficient "evidence" that a company is not “foreign owned.”

Please confirm this interpretation is correct. If this is not sufficient, would the Government prefer offerors (to include teammates) submit their most recent determination letters from the Defense Security Service confirming their continued ability to possess classified information (of which lack of foreign ownership control or influence is an element)?

Foreign ownership is defined by the U.S.

Defense Security Service. The DSS will determine foreign ownership through the FCL process.

Section L L.3.3.2.1.1.1 Approach to OM&S for J-Tech II Functional Areas. Recommend clarifying if this approach should be at the Enterprise PWS-level.

Section L has been updated.

Section L L.2.5.2.2.2 Proposal preparation team members. Does the 5-year investigation requirement exclude personnel from SAP read-in if their periodic reinvestigation is currently underway?

Not if the reinvestigation was submitted prior to the expiration of an existing clearance.

Annex 3 TDD Annex 3 PWS A3.3.11 (U) references the Annex 3 Communication Systems TDD, which is not included in the Annex 3 TDD. Will the Government please confirm this TDD will be made available to offerors?

The Government will provide the missing TDD.

Annex 3 TDD Annex 3 PWS states that Annex 3 Appendix 16, A3-TDD-16 (Systems Engineering) is reserved. Will the Government please provide details on when this TDD will be available to offerors?

There is no TDD for Annex 3, 3.16. The paragraph is reserved for possible future use.

Annex 4 TDD Annex 4 PWS states that Annex 4 Appendix 14, A4-TDD-14 (Test Engineering) is reserved. Will the Government please provide details on when this TDD will be available to offerors?

There is no TDD for Annex 4, 4.14. The paragraph is reserved for possible future use.

Annex 4 TDD Annex 4 PWS states that Annex 4 Appendix 16, A4-TDD-16 (Systems Engineering) is reserved. Will the Government please provide details on when this TDD will be available to offerors?

There is no TDD for Annex 4, 4.14. The paragraph is reserved for possible future use.

J-Tech II Offeror Software

Will the Government clarify whether the successful contractor is required to have direct experience with each of the software packages noted in the recently released J-Tech II Offeror Software list?

There is no requirement for the successful Offeror to have direct experience with the software tools listed.

RFP Document Reference

Detailed (Paragraph) Reference

Comment Recommended Revision Government Response

J-Tech II Phase 1 RFP Comment/Recommendation Matrix

J-Tech II Offeror Software

The list of software available to J-Tech II offerors includes 12 software tools developed by JT3. These tools are not available commercially and therefore only the incumbent offeror (e.g., JT3) has experience with them. As such, we request the Government please provide the following to allow offerors the ability to understand whether those applications are consistent with their proposed approach(es):

• Complete details on each program’s capabilities, interfaces, and support structure

• Access to the tools during the proposal period to allow offerors the ability to evaluate application effectiveness

• A list and examples of products each tool produces, and a summary of Government evaluations of these tools

• An on-line demonstration of each tool and the code for the tools

The software list was provided for information only. As a representative list, there is no requirement to use any specific tools listed.

There is no intent to demonstrate the application/tools.

J-Tech II Offeror Software

Will the Government please clarify at which Annexes and Sub-Annexes each software tool identified in the J-Tech II Offeror Software list is in use? Will the Government please clarify if the version of each software tool is consistent throughout each Annex-and Sub-Annex?

The Government will not provide detailed utilization information. The Offeror's unique approach should be considered in their decision to use or not use the tools in the list.

J-Tech II Offeror Software

Will the Government please provide a list of products, as well as a sample product for each, produced by each software tool identified in the J-Tech II Offeror Software list?

The Government will not provide product samples of these specific output products.

J-Tech II Offeror Software

Will the Government please clarify the current interconnectivity of applications of each software tool identified in the J-Tech II Offeror Software list?

There is no intent to provide interconnectivity of applications. The Offeror's unique approach will drive interconnectivity of proposed tools.

J-Tech II Offeror Software

The Maximo CMMS is often customized to meet project specific needs. Will the Government please provide a summary of the current modifications/customizations in place to meet J-Tech I requirements?

There is no intent to provide CMMS customization. The Offeror's unique approach will drive customization of proposed tools.

J-Tech II Offeror Software

The list of software available to J-Tech II offerors includes 12 software tools developed by JT3. These tools are not available commercially. Will the Government please clarify whether the successful Offeror will receive the source code to each of these tools at contract award and will be authorized to modify these tools to meet project requirements?

The Government will provide source code for Government owned software to the successful Offeror, if available.

J-Tech II Offeror Software

Will the Government please clarify whether offerors that elect to propose alternative tools to those outlined in the J-Tech II Offer Software list will be assessed an increased Technical Risk score per Section M 3.3.5.3?

The technical risk of the Offeror's proposal will be assessed on it's individual technical merits per Section M, 3.3.5.3.

RFP Document Reference

Detailed (Paragraph) Reference

Comment Recommended Revision Government Response

J-Tech II Phase 1 RFP Comment/Recommendation Matrix

Section L-5 Attachment

Instructions The Attachment L-5 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) instructions state offerors are to forward a Client Authorization Letter (Attachment L-7) along with the PPQ to the contract reviewer. Review of the Attachment L-7 reveals the Client Authorization Letter is intended exclusively for commercial contracts/customers. There does not appear to be a corresponding authorization form for Government contracts/customers in the draft procurement package.

Will the Government please clarify if offerors are to forward a Client Authorization Letter (Attachment L-7) along with the PPQ for Government contract references? If affirmative, we recommend the Government consider revising Attachment L-7 language to include Government contracts/customers. If negative, will the Government please clarify if any authorization form is required to be forwarded with the PPQ for Government contracts/customers?

Attachment L-5 has been updated to state that Attachment L-7 is only needed for commercial contracts.

Section L 1.2.10 Section L 1.2.10 requires that each volume shall contain an acronym and abbreviation list.

Will the Government please confirm that Phase 1, Volume II Contract Documentation and Phase 2, Volume IV Contract Documentation do not require a list of abbreviations and acronyms?

If acronyms and abbreviations are used, the volume shall contain said list at Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Section L 1.2.13 Section L 1.2.13 requires that pages be typed with line spacing set to 1.15. This requirement is a revision from the single line spacing allowance contained in the Draft RFP and effectively reduces usable page space by approximately 10-15%.

Recognizing the new line spacing requirement may enhance readability, recommend the Government permit use of text that is no less than 11-point Arial to regain lost page space and effectively respond to the significant J-Tech II procurement requirements.

The Government understands the result of setting the line spacing to 1.15 and believes the corresponding page counts are sufficient.

Section L 1.2.13 Section L 1.2.13 requires pages to be numbered sequentially by volume.

Will the Government please confirm that, in order to provide documents with their original formatting, contract/project requirements document(s) provided in response to Section L 2.3.2 and 2.4.2 are excluded from the page numbering requirement?

All documents in the submission shall be numbered sequentially, IAW Section L, 1.2.13.

Section L 1.2.13 Section L 1.2.13 requires offerors to retain the formatting of reproduced sections of this solicitation.

Will the Government please confirm that the requirement to retain existing formatting applies to the Section L-2 Attachment, Section L-4 Attachment, Section L-12 Attachment, and the Section L-13 Attachment?

Retain formatting of Section L attachments.

Section L 1.2.13 Section L 1.2.13 requires the proposal text size to be no less than 12-point Arial font and line spacing to be set to 1.15.

Will the Government please confirm that the font size and spacing requirements do not apply to the formatting of the Government provided documents, such as the Section L- 2, L-3, L-4, and L-13 Attachments?

Retain formatting of Section L attachments.

RFP Document Reference

Detailed (Paragraph) Reference

Comment Recommended Revision Government Response

J-Tech II Phase 1 RFP Comment/Recommendation Matrix

Section L 1.2.13; 1.2.14 Section L 1.2.13 requires that pages be typed with line spacing set to 1.15. Section L

1.2.14 provides additional guidance for formatting tables, charts, graphs, and figures;

however, Section L 1.2.14 does not specify whether the 1.15 line spacing requirement is applicable to tables, charts, graphs, and figures.

As irregular line spacing can often complicate graphic development and presentation, recommend the Government permit single line spacing for tables, charts, graphs, and figures.

Updated Section L to specify 1.15 spacing for tables, charts, graphs, and figures.

Section L 2.3.2; 2.4.2 Given the commonality of requirements between Phases 1A and 1B, it is highly probable that five of the contracts included in the Attachment L-2 (Phase 1A) will also be used for the Attachment L-4 (Phase 1B) submission. Under the present direction given in RFP Section L 2.3.2 and Section L 2.4.2, offerors are required to provide supporting contract/project requirements documents for each submitted Attachment L-2 and Attachment L-4 for each of these five projects (for a total of ten requirement sets total). As a result, offerors will be required to provide potentially hundreds of pages of duplicative contract requirements document(s) (e.g., PWS, TDD).

To reduce the opportunity for such document redundancy and increase the ease of Government evaluation, we recommend offerors be required to submit only one set of contract/project requirements document(s) if contract/project reference is used to address both Attachment L-2 (Phase 1A) and Attachment L-4 (Phase 1B) requirements.

The Government recognizes the potential for duplication between Phase 1A and 1B, however, Offerors are required to submit contract/projects twice if used for both.

Section L 2.3.2; 2.4.2 Sections L 2.3.2 and 2.4.2 require offerors to provide supporting contract/project requirements document(s) in their “native format.” While this requirement does not affect the hard copy submission, it appears to impact the electronic submittal. For example, the native format for a single contract reference supporting documentation may include one SOW file and several individual Appendix files, each of which is in a different format ranging from Word and PDF to Excel. This requirement prevents offerors from organizing the many documents in a manner conducive to easy evaluation by the Government and preparation by the offeror. As an alternative, the offeror could consolidate the multiple, potentially multi-formatted support documentation files into a single PDF file.

For ease of evaluation, will the Government please allow for supporting contract/project requirements document(s) to be provided in a minimum of one electronic, searchable PDF file per contract/project reference?

No change, native formats are required per Section L 2.3.2, and 2.4.2.

Section L 2.5.2.2.1 Section L 2.5.2.2.1 requires that personnel submitted for Phase 2 consideration must possess a Top Secret/Single Scope Background Investigation (TS/SSBI). Some individuals have possessed Top Secret clearances through multiple reinvestigations and therefore their most recent investigation status in JPAS is SSBI Periodic Reinvestigation (SBPR) or SSBI Phased Periodic Reinvestigation (PPR).

Will the Government please confirm that individuals may possess a TS/SSBI, TS/SBPR, or TS/PPR to be eligible for Phase 2 consideration?

SSBI requirement has been removed from Section L. As long as the clearance is a current TS, the type of investigation is irrelevant.

Section L 2.5.2.2.1 Section L 2.5.2.2.1 requires that personnel submitted for Phase 2 consideration must possess a Top Secret/Single Scope Background Investigation (TS/SSBI).

Will the Government please clarify whether an interim Top Secret/SSBI is sufficient for Phase 2 consideration?

No, interim clearances are not sufficient for Phase 2.

RFP Document Reference

Detailed (Paragraph) Reference

Comment Recommended Revision Government Response

J-Tech II Phase 1 RFP Comment/Recommendation Matrix

Section L 2.5.2.2.2.1 Section L 2.5.2.2.2.1 requires offerors to provide evidence of a Top Secret facility clearance (FCL).

Will the Government please clarify whether an interim Top Secret FCL is sufficient for Phase 2 consideration?

No, interim FCL clearances are not sufficient for Phase 2.

Section L 3.0 Will the Government please confirm RFP Section 3.0 contains the complete set of proposal requirements for the J-Tech II procurement, and that no additional proposal requirements, such as an additional sample task, will be imposed as part of the Phase 2 Solicitation Amendment?

The Government will update Section L with Phase 2 requirements, however, we will not impose additional factors, subfactors, or scenarios as part of the Phase 2 solicitation amendment.

Section L 3.1.2 Will the Government please provide a notional schedule for Phase 2 indoctrination and proposal submission due date, recognizing several factors may greatly influence the realization of this schedule, such as the number of Phase 1 offerors and security adjudication?

This information will be provided as part of the Phase 2 pre-proposal conference.

Section L 3.3.1.5 Sections L 3.3.1.5 requires offerors to “…identify and explain how areas within its subfactor responses would reasonably result in cost savings or improvements (e.g., qualitative, quantitative) that benefit the Government.”

Will the Government please clarify the level of detail required in the Technical volume to meet this requirement and the type of quantitative information the Government requires? For example, may offerors meet this requirement by providing the expected source(s) of qualitative and quantitative benefits along with estimated percentages of cost savings?

We recommend the Government revise the requirement as the following “Throughout the Offeror’s responses to Technical Subfactors A, B, C, and D, the Offeror should identify and explain how areas within its subfactor responses would reasonably result in cost savings or improvements that benefit the Government.”

The level of detail required should explain how areas within its subfactor responses would reasonably result in cost savings or improvements per Section L 3.3.1.5. The Offeror may provide the expected source(s) and outcomes of qualitative and quantitative benefits.

Section L Table 3.1 Section L Table 3.1 prescribes a 100 page limit on the Contract Documentation Volume (Volume IV). The Contract Documentation Volume contains several requirements which in their native format will exceed this page limit. For example, Section B of the model contract consists of over 200 pages.

Will the Government please clarify whether the Contract Documentation Volume 100 page limit is imposed only for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan (RFP Section L 3.6.2.1), the Property Management Plan (RFP Section L 3.6.2.2), and the Continuity of Operations Plan (RFP Section 3.6.2.3) requirements of the volume?

Section L 3.6 has been updated to clarify that the 100 page count does not include model contract documentation.

Section L Attachment 01 Government Estimate;

Attachment 09 Labor Category Definitions

The Government Estimate for Annex 4, 3.2.0 contains 3,760 hours for an Elec Tech V.

There does not appear to be a Labor Category definition, skills/experience description, or labor rate for this category.

Will the Government please provide the Elec Tech V labor category description and corresponding Annex 4 labor rate?

The Government will update the labor categories and estimate with the Phase 2 amendment.

RFP Document Reference

Detailed (Paragraph) Reference

Comment Recommended Revision Government Response

J-Tech II Phase 1 RFP Comment/Recommendation Matrix

Section L Attachment 01 Government Estimate;

Attachment 09 Labor Category Definitions

The Government Estimate for Annex 4, 3.15.0 contains 9,400 hours for a Computer Systems Administrator I, but there is only a Labor Category definition and corresponding labor rate for a Computer Systems Administrator.

May offerors assume the Computer Systems Administrator I is the category described in Attachment 09 as a Computer Systems Administrator, and that the Computer Systems Administrator I labor rate is that defined for a Computer Systems Administrator, Annex 4?

The Government will update the labor categories and estimate with the Phase 2 amendment.

Section L Attachment 01 Government Estimate;

Attachment 09 Labor Category Definitions

The Government Estimate for Annex 4, 3.15.0 contains 3,760 hours each for General Clerk II and General Clerk III, but there are only Labor Category definitions for Clerk I, II, and III.

May offerors assume the General Clerk II and III are the categories described in Attachment 09 as Clerk II and III?

The Government will update the labor categories and estimate with the Phase 2 amendment.

Section L Attachment 01 Government Estimate;

Attachment 09 Labor Category Definitions

It does not appear there are hours for the following labor categories, although the labor category definitions were included: Admin Assistant IV; Section Supv I, II, III; Tech Training Manager; and Training Facilitator.

Will the Government confirm there are no labor hours for these labor categories in the Government estimate?

The Government will update the labor categories and estimate with the Phase 2 amendment.

Section L Attachment 01 Government Estimate;

Attachment 09 Labor Category Definitions

The Government Estimate for Annex 1, 3.17.3 contains 16,200 hours for an Order Clerk II, but there is only a Labor Category definition for an Order Clerk.

May offerors assume all references to Order Clerk or Order Clerk II are the same category and that the Order Clerk II is the category described in Attachment 09 as an Order Clerk?

The Government will update the labor categories and estimate with the Phase 2 amendment.

Section L-11 Attachment

Question 2; PSQ Template 2

Question 2 of the Pre-Screening (PSQ) (Attachment L-11) requires individuals to answer in the affirmative if they have “any close or continuing contact with citizens of another country”.

Will the Government please elaborate on what is considered “close or continuing contact”?

If uncertainty exists as to what is close or continuing contact, report the contact.

RFP Document Reference

Detailed (Paragraph) Reference

Comment Recommended Revision Government Response

J-Tech II Phase 1 RFP Comment/Recommendation Matrix

Section L-11 Attachment

Question 3; PSQ Template 3

Question 3 of the Pre-Screening Questionnaire (PSQ) (Attachment L-11) requires individuals to answer in the affirmative if they have traveled to a foreign country not previously reported since their last completed investigation and not previously reported in an annual response to this question on a PSQ.

As alluded in PSQ Template 3, individuals possessing a security clearance are required to report foreign travel to their local security officer in advance of actual travel, and to debrief the local security officer of the foreign travel subsequent to actual travel.

This reporting appears to satisfy the first requirement of PSQ question 3. However, individuals with collateral clearance only (e.g., TS/SSBI) are not required to complete an annual PSQ and therefore would fail the second requirement of PSQ question 3 without a priori knowledge of its existence and need for future SAP/SCI endeavors – thus requiring the individual to answer in the affirmative to Question 3.

Will the Government please confirm the above interpretation of each requirement of PSQ question 3 is correct? If incorrect, will the Government please provide clarification on whether individuals who have conducted foreign travel since their last investigation, have reported this travel to their local security official, and have not completed a PSQ are required to answer in the affirmative or negative to PSQ question 3?

Report non-official U.S. Government foreign travel that has not been previously reported since your last investigation and not previously reported in an annual response to this question on the PSQ.

Section L-5 Attachment

Contract Data Section L 2.4.2 requires offerors to submit an Attachment L-5 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for rating a contract with a period of performance less than one year. However, Attachment L-5 PPQ requires evaluators to assess performance based on a twelve month continuous PoP.

Will the Government please allow offerors to modify the PoP rating section to clarify the period of performance requiring evaluation?

Section L 2.4.2 has been updated.

RFP Document Reference

Detailed (Paragraph) Reference

Comment Recommended Revision Government Response

J-Tech II Phase 1 RFP Comment/Recommendation Matrix

Sections H and L Section H H003 and Section L 3.3.2.1.4, 3.3.2.1.4.1

Sections L 3.3.2.1.4.1 requires offerors to “Identify not more than 12 Key Leadership/Management Positions, as required in H003, based on the Offeror’s proposed approach….” (bolding added). Section L 3.3.2.2.1.4.1 requires offerors to “Identify individuals that meet the qualifications identified in Section L paragraph

3.3.2.2.1.4 to fill exactly six (6) of its proposed Key Management/Leadership Positions.

For each individual identified, the Offeror shall submit a letter of commitment from the individual stating that he/she will perform in the assigned position for at least the transition period and first two (2) years of contract performance." (bolding added)

However, RFP Section H003 states that “…Unless coordinated in advance, in writing by the Contracting Officer, should these twelve positions be removed, replaced, or diverted within the transition period first two years of period of performance, or for a replacement Key Person within two years of being placed in the position, the Contractor's award fee may be reduced during the applicable period for each occurrence.” (bolding added)

Will the Government please clarify that per Section L, offerors are to submit letters of commitment from exactly 6 individuals stating that he/she will perform in the assigned position for at least the transition period and first two (2) years of contract performance? Will the Government also revise the statement in Section H003 to ensure consistency between Section L and Section H?

Section L 3.3.2.1.4 and 3.3.2.1.4.1 – no change

Section H003 – Unless coordinated in advance, in writing by the Contracting Officer, should these six positions be removed, replaced, or diverted within the transition period, first two years of period of performance, or for a replacement Key Person within two years of being placed in the position, the Contractor's award fee may be reduced during the applicable period for each occurrence.

No change, correct as written in Sections L and H.

Section L 2.5.2.2.1 Please confirm that the evidence required by Section L, Paragraph 2.5.2.2.1, Foreign Ownership, is the FOCI analysis as conducted in accordance with the U.S. Defense Security Service's NISPOM and as outlined in Standard Form 328 (SF 328). If the FOCI analysis and SF 328 is not the evidence required by Section L, Paragraph 2.5.2.2.1, Foreign Ownership, please clarify what constitutes evidence.

Yes, Foreign Ownership is evidenced by FOCI analysis and the SF 328.

Section L 2.5.2.2.2 Pertaining to Section L, Paragraph 2.5.2.2.1, Foreign Ownership, we assume the government does not mean if a foreign person owns one share of stock, but has no direct or indirect control, as constituting foreign ownership. We assume the AF is asking about foreign ownership that has control and influence as defined by the U.S.

Defense Security Service. Please confirm the assumptions.

Yes, foreign ownership is defined by the U.S.

Defense Security Service.

Section L Attachment 3 The Phase I Past Performance excel workbook instructions tell the offeror "do not lock or change any formulas or formats."

The current format is set at 8 1/2 X 14

Suggest the government allow bidders to adjust the format to 11 x 17 for ease of reading, printing and inclusion in the 3 ring binders.

Retain formatting of Section L attachments.

Section L Will the Government sponsor J-Tech II Offeror's for a FCL? Yes

Whom may Offeror's contact for security questions or concerns? Only the PCO.

RFP Document Reference

Detailed (Paragraph) Reference

Comment Recommended Revision Government Response

J-Tech II Phase 1 RFP Comment/Recommendation Matrix

Does the Government require Offeror's to have specific or approved types of hardware or software for Phase 2 facilities?

No, however foreign developed software may require additional time to evaluate.

Does a facility need to be owned by the Offeror? No, but there must be an agreement between the owner and the Offeror's use of the facility.

Section L Attachment 5 Will the Government accept a copy of PPQs completed before the RFP amendment and using the prior instructions?

Yes, the Government will accept either version of the Phase 1 PPQ.

65 Section L 1.2.13

Based on discussions at the Pre-proposal conference, we understand that supporting documents in Volume 1, Sections 1A and 1B will be required only in the Original Volume and not required in the copies as long as the electronic document is searchable.

With regard to numbering these documents, if we PDF all documents and put a sequential page number on them, the Original and the copy will not match.

Suggest the government allow bidders to number all documents in the copy version sequentially, basically allowing the additional information (PWS, SOW, TRD, CPAR, PPQ, etc..) These documents are independently numbered to stand alone as attachments behind each PPI.

Section L paragraph 1.2.13 has been updated.

66 Section L 2.5.2.2.2.1

Section L 2.5.2.2.2.1 requires that personnel submitted for Phase 2 consideration must possess a Top Secret/Single Scope Background Investigation (TS/SSBI). Some of the personnel we wish to submit for Phase 2 consideration possess an interim Top Secret security clearance and are anticipated to be granted a Top Secret/SSBI in the near future, prior to Phase 2 SAP indoctrination. Further, these personnel do not have an affirmative answer to any of the Section L Attachment 11 Pre-Screening Questionnaire questions and therefore are at low risk of additional security screening per Section L 2.5.2.2.2.1.1.

Will the Government please allow offers to submit personnel possessing an interim Top Secret for Phase 2 consideration and alert the Contracting Officer once the Top Secret/SSBI has been granted, recognizing an interim Top Secret clearance is insufficient for Phase 2 SAP indoctrination?

The first step in the nomination process is the baseline, final TS clearance. For access to the classified material in question, the Government cannot accept and process a submission (partial package) if the person in question does not meet the prerequisite TS clearance requirement.

67 Section L 1.2.13

Based on discussions at the Pre-proposal conference, we understand that supporting documents in Volume 1, Sections 1A and 1B will be required only in the Original Volume and not required in the copies as long as the electronic document is searchable.

With regard to numbering these documents, if we PDF all documents and put a sequential page number on them, the Original and the copy will not match.

Suggest the government allow bidders to number all documents in the copy version sequentially, basically allowing the additional information (PWS, SOW, TRD, CPAR, PPQ, etc..) These documents are independently numbered to stand alone as attachments behind each PPI.

Section L, Paragraph 1.2.13 has been updated.