Question_and_Answers_Posted_to_FBO_11_July_2017.pdf

Industry Question and Answer

- Pre RFP Release –

Note: Comments in black and entitled “Question” are received from Industry. Comments in blue and entitled “Answer” are from the Government.

06 June 2017

Question 1: If there is an incumbent, could you please provide the contract number?

Answer 1: The incumbent is Booz Allen Hamilton. Contract Number: GS00Q09BGD0013 Order No:

ID07130017.

Question 2: The term, "a primary line of business," is ambiguous. Would the government please consider modifying paragraph 1.1.4 to read, "The contractor shall provide oversight of test system hardware and software component development and production programs. Therefore, the contractor shall not produce automated test systems or test program sets for sale, beyond the development of proof of concept and other prototypes."

Answer 2: Paragraph 1.1.3. of the PWS is revised to the following:

“Therefore, the contractor shall not engage in AIS test system hardware, software, or TPS development or production.”

Question 3: Please confirm that an OEM would not be eligible to serve as a prime contractor under this

RFP.

Answer 3: The OEMs are not permitted to serve as the Prime Contractor for this effort.

Question 4: May we get access to the technical data library, especially concerning the LM and BAE equipment? Even just user manuals or TOs?

Answer 4: A bidder’s library will be posted to FBO in the upcoming days.

Question 5: Would the AF consider making the OEMs mandatory or directed sources. This would greatly increase competition for this effort.

Answer 5: No. The role of the integrator includes determining the correct source for any given task while taking into consideration all aspects of sound configuration management.

Question 6: Would the government please consider renaming the column, “Proposal Volume,” and rename the column labeled “Technical Volume,” as “Paragraph Reference.”

Answer 6: Section L Table 2 – Sample Cross Reference Matrix is revised to the following:

Table 2 – Sample Cross Reference Matrix

Section L Section M PWS Technical Volume

Para. X.x. Para. X.x. Para. X.x. Para. X.x.

Question 7: Will the Government consider revising the proposal submission means to require electronic submissions only to alleviate the cost, time, and print-over-pdf precedence burdens associated with paper submissions?

Answer 7: No, the Government considered this request and will continue to require "both a paper and electronic media" (Section L para 2.15.1.)

Question 8: Will the Government consider allowing submission in an uneditable format (pdf) to ensure the proposal is seen by the evaluator exactly as intended, without any unintentional changes introduced by the evaluators' Word doc settings?

Answer 8: No, the Government considered this request and will continue to require the details stated in Section L para 2.23 as written.

Question 9: Please confirm the requirements listed in Section L for Volume I do not include a summary of the entire proposal.

Answer 9: Correct, Volume I - Executive Summary does not include a “summary of the entire proposal” rather the elements listed in the outline (Section L, para 3).

Question 10: Confirm that no estimate or pricing is required for Sample Tasks

Answer 10: Correct, no estimate or pricing is required for the stated Sample Tasks.

Question 11: Recommend the Government rewords to read "Data Requirements: show approach to develop a Test Plan, approach to develop all required Field Service Bulletins, and show that ATE data to be updated includes the following: specifications, Technical Orders, engineering data, provisioning documentation, and Calibration and Measurement Requirements Summary (CMRS)."

Answer 11: Section L, para 5.2.1.5. is revised to the following:

“Data Requirements: show approach to develop a Test Plan, approach to develop all required Field Service Bulletins, and show that ATE data to be updated includes the following: specifications, Technical Orders, engineering data, provisioning documentation, and Calibration and Measurement Requirements Summary (CMRS).”

Question 12: Does this subparagraph mean ''evidence of approach to deliver 100% of Sample Task ...

CDRLs "?

Answer 12: The intent of Section L, para 5.2.1.7. is as written. No changes were made to this para.

Question 13: The RFP does not provide any definition of the "work" the successful offeror will perform in the first 45 days. Should offerors assume the work defined in our responses to the sample tasks is the only work occurring in the first 45 days?

Answer 13: No. Section M, para 5.6.1.1. and 5.6.1.2. refer to elements that need to be represented in the Transition Plan component of the overall Program Management Plan. The sample tasks are not awardable tasks expected to occur during the first 45 days. Transition of the program is expected to occur during the first 45 days. It is expected that there will be "work" required to accomplish the transition. Evidence of a plan and the ability to accomplish the work of transition is required.

Question 14: Recommend the Government rewords to read "Data Requirements: show approach to develop a Test Plan, approach to develop all required Field Service Bulletins, and show that ATE data to be updated includes the following: specifications, Technical Orders, engineering data, provisioning documentation, and Calibration and Measurement Requirements Summary (CMRS)."

Answer 14: Corrected. Section M, para 5.4.1.5 is revised. See Answer 11.

Question 15: Does this subparagraph mean ''evidence of approach to deliver 100% of Sample Task ...

CDRLs "?

Answer 15: See Answer 12.

Question 16: Will the government confirm the requirement for a table of labor categories and hours be included in the program management sections of the STO. How will the government evaluate what is “proper?”

Answer 16: The Government has deleted this section of the USAF Sample Task.

15 June 2017

Question 17: For Technical Volume III, does the government require proposals reach 200 pages?

Answer 17: No, IAW Section L 2.17, page limitations shall be treated as maximum. In other words, the page limitations shall be treated as not to exceed.

Question 18: Would the Government please revise this RFP section to clarify the Subfactor Three Program Management Plan shall be limited to address PWS elements 3.1, 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.4, and the elements identified in DI-MGMT-81797? If this interpretation is incorrect, would the Government please provide an itemization of PWS paragraphs that must be addressed in the Subfactor 3 Program Management Plan approach?

Answer 18: No, all of the elements of the PMP are addressed and delineated in Section L 5.2.3. and in sub paragraphs.

Question 19: Would the Government please revise these RFP sections to clarify that the Program Management approaches required in the Sub-factor One: Sample Task One (USAF) and Sub-factor Two:

Sample Task Two (FMS) responses, specifically in terms of compliance with DI-MGMT-81797, are only required to address the NON-cost items, specifically:

Paragraph 3a (Introduction) is Required;

Paragraph 3b (Indication of the relationship of the plan to the CWBS, to include a description of each element is Required, but NOT the cost associated with each element);

Paragraph 3c (Milestone chart) is Required;

Paragraph 3d (Equipment/facilities chart) is Required;

Paragraph 3e (Cost Chart) NOT Required;

Paragraph 3f (Purchase Chart) NOT Required; and Paragraph 3g (Organization Data) is Required.

If this interpretation is incorrect, would the Government please provide a correct itemization of how the STO program management approaches should comply with DI-MGMT-81797 and not violate Section L 4.5?

Answer 19: Confirmed, as stated in the Question and Answer 10, cost/price are not required as part of satisfying the Sample Task. Therefore, paragraphs 3e and 3f found in DI-MGMT-81797 are not required.

Question 20: Would the Government please revise these RFP sections to clarify the Program Management approaches required in the Sample Task responses, specifically in terms of compliance with the PWS, are only required to address how the contractor will meet the 12 Performance Objectives stated in PWS 2.4? If this interpretation is incorrect, would the Government please provide an itemization of PWS paragraphs that must be addressed in the Sample Task's Program Management approaches?

Answer 20: 1- The requirements of Section L, paragraphs 5.2.1.6. and 5.2.2.7 are to provide a Program Management approach as to how the PMP will be applied to satisfy the applicable Sample Task. 2- To address the Performance Objective within the PWS para 2.4, the purpose of this section is to track performance in monthly status reports post contract award. This section should be considered separate from the requirements of Section L 5.2.1.6 and 5.2.2.7.

Question 21: The FAR allows for Cost Realism of competitive fixed-price-type contracts due to requirements that may not be fully understood by competing offerors and to inherent quality concerns that could negatively impact the mission. Would the Government please include a measure of Cost Realism as a criterion for evaluation in accordance with FAR 15.4.4-1(d)?

Answer 21: The government considered this request and has determined not to include Cost Realism as a criterion for evaluation. However, the proposed labor rates will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

Question 22: Would the Government please revise the RFP to require each offeror to prove successful delivery of a contract requiring the specification, development, acquisition and delivery of US Air Force aircraft automated test systems? The referenced contract should include delivery of equipment to foreign countries and foreign militaries. The magnitude of the contract should be greater than $25M per annum for at least 3 consecutive years.

Answer 22: No, the Government considered this evaluation factor and determined it would not be a part of the source selection.

Question 23: Would the Government please revise this RFP section to clarify that the Subfactor Three Program Management Plan shall be limited to address PWS elements 3.1, 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.4, and the elements identified in DI-MGMT-81797? If this interpretation is incorrect, would the Government please provide an itemization of PWS paragraphs that must be addressed in the Subfactor 3 Program Management Plan approach?

Answer 23: No, all of the elements of the PMP are addressed and delineated in Section M 5.6. and in sub paragraphs.

Question 24: Would the Government please revise these RFP sections to clarify that the Program Management approaches required in the Sub-factor One: Sample Task One (USAF) and Sub-factor Two:

Sample Task Two (FMS) responses, specifically in terms of compliance with DI-MGMT-81797, are only required to address the NON-cost items, specifically:

Paragraph 3a (Introduction) is Required;

Paragraph 3b (Indication of the relationship of the plan to the CWBS, to include a description of each element is Required, but NOT the cost associated with each element);

Paragraph 3c (Milestone chart) is Required;

Paragraph 3d (Equipment/facilities chart) is Required;

Paragraph 3e (Cost Chart) NOT Required;

Paragraph 3f (Purchase Chart) NOT Required; and Paragraph 3g (Organization Data) is Required.

If this interpretation is incorrect, would the Government please provide a correct itemization of how the STO program management approaches should comply with DI-MGMT-81797 and not violate Section L 4.5?

Answer 24: Confirmed, as stated in the Question and Answer 10, cost/price are not required as part of satisfying the Sample Task. Therefore, paragraphs 3e and 3f found in DI-MGMT-81797 are not required.

Question 25: Would the Government please revise these RFP sections to clarify that the Program Management approaches required in the Sample Task responses, specifically in terms of compliance with the PWS, are only required to address how the contractor will meet the 12 Performance Objectives stated in PWS 2.4? If this interpretation is incorrect, would the Government please provide an itemization of PWS paragraphs that must be addressed in the Sample Task's Program Management approaches?

Answer 25: 1- The requirements of Section L, paragraphs 5.2.1.6. and 5.2.2.7 are to provide a Program Management approach as to how the PMP will be applied to satisfy the applicable Sample Task. 2- To address the Performance Objective within the PWS para 2.4, the purpose of this section is to track performance in monthly status reports post contract award. This section should be considered separate from the requirements of Section L 5.2.1.6 and 5.2.2.7.

Question 26: Would the Government please revise this CDRL to clarify that the Transition Plan is due at time of award?

Answer 26: The PWS para 4.2.1.3 will be revised and posted to FBO when the RFP is released

Question 27: Would the Government please revise the Labor Rates tabs of the Rates Worksheet to include only the fully burdened labor rates?

Answer 27: The government considered this request and has determined to leave the Labor Rates tabs of the Rates Worksheet unchanged. The base, fringe, and fully-burdened labor rates will be required on the Rates Worksheet.

11 July 2017

Question 28: Would the Government please revise this RFP section to clarify the term "Key," means staff that are critical and expected to be available on Day 1 of the contract; and, who will not be substituted without a 30-day notice to the Government?

If this interpretation is incorrect, would the Government please clarify the meaning of Key?

Answer 28: The Solicitation provides sufficient information of the term “key” and its applicability. For example, PWS para 4.2.1.2.2. and Section M para 5.6.1.4. provide information regarding key personnel.

Question 29: Would the Government please revise this sentence to clarify that Offerors are required to identify Key Personnel by name; provide proof of employment or a signed contingency offer; and, that the Government intends to evaluate either resumes and/or a staffing matrix to substantiate the credentials of the proposed Key Personnel?

Answer 29: No, the government considered this request and has decided not to change the stated information. The requirements of the PWS Attachment 1, clearly state the education level, minimum experience, and work description, among other details, of individuals that the AIS Contractor shall be contractually required to adhere to.

Question 30: Would the Government please specifically define the required capabilities and minimum experience of the Key Personnel to reduce AIS/PSI program risk of selecting a contractor without the proper corporate or personnel experience required to perform the AIS mission?

Answer 30: See Answer 29.

Question 31: Given the context, does the Government mean ‘predicted’ rather than ‘predicated?’

Answer 31: Yes, this correction has been made to reflect predicted rather than predicated.

Question 32: Would the Government please revise this sentence to define the required capabilities and minimum experience of the Key Personnel to reduce AIS/PSI program risk of selecting a contractor without the proper corporate or personnel experience required to performa the mission?

Answer 32: See Answer 29.

Question 33: Would the Government consider publishing an ODC plug number to allow offerors to provide a more accurate bid?

Answer 33: Yes, the Government considered this question and has decided to update Section M, paragraph 4.1.3.2 as well as the Labor/Material Rates Worksheet (Material Burden Tab) to disclose the government generated notional material values.

Question 34: Would the Government please specifically define the required capabilities and minimum experience of the Key Personnel to reduce AIS/PSI program risk of selecting a contractor without the proper corporate or personnel experience required to perform the mission?

Answer 34: See Answer 29.

Question 35: Would the Government please consider specifying the PWS functional areas to be supported for each LCAT, and requiring work experience directly relevant to the PWS functional areas?

For example, LCAT #19 ILS Manager should demonstrate experience performing all tasks related to PWS

4.2.7 Systems Integration Sustaining Engineering Activities.

Answer 35: This question is creating assumptions (i.e. LCAT) that are not part of this Solicitation. The government considered this question/assumptions and has decided not to change any of the information in regards to this question.

Question 36: Over time it appears this acquisition strategy has evolved, can you please tell us if there are any efforts/contracts on-going to replace any of the 6 components identified in Sample Task 1? If so, are they on the existing incumbent contract?

Answer 36: See Answer 1. They are currently supporting the USAF.

Question 37: Section M, para 5.6.1.4 - ID Key Personnel. This section references key personnel and PWS Attach 1 with 32 Labor Categories. Which categories are key? Are all 32 Labor Categories currently filled? Do all 32 labor categories sit on Hill AFB?

Answer 37: Key personnel positions are identified with an asterisk as stated in the PWS, Attachment 1.

In regards to the question “Are all 32 Labor Categories currently filled”, no, currently all of the 32 positions are not filled. Positions are “filled” based on the requirements of the issued Task Order. In regards to the question “Do all 32 labor categories sit on Hill AFB”, no, all 32 positions do not reside on Hill AFB.

Question 38: Section M.4.1 indicates the TEP fully burdened labor rates will be contractually binding ceilings upon award. However, the RFP Section L 4.1.1.2 requires that Offerors provide each component of the rate in their proposal—direct labor, fringe, indirect rates (Overhead, General and Administrative, etc.), profit and Facilities Capital Cost of Money (if applicable) necessary for the performance of the entire requirement. Please confirm the Government defines the fully burdened rate as the ceiling rate?

Answer 38: The Government considers the fully burdened labor rates as fixed celling rates. As such, these contractually binding amounts shall not increase after award without the written/negotiated agreement between the Contracting Officer and Contractor.