Q A_18_July_2014.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

7/18/2014, 11:12 AM

Comment

Number Document

Page/Section/

Paragraph Question/Comment Recommendation

Response Amendment

(Y/N)

164 Section L Para 6.5.3

a) Please define “probable subcontractor”.

b) If Offeror proposes a “probable subcontractor” that would increase Offeror’s total value by 10-20%, are they treated like a “major subcontractor” and need to submit a separate cost volume?

c) Besides the instructions for requirements given in Section 6.5.3, are there any other compliance requirements that are applicable for “probable subcontractors”?

d) Does the “probable subcontractor” need to submit a LOI or TA?

a) A probable subcontractor is defined as any potential or likely supplier, distributor, vendor, or firm that will furnish supplies or services to or for a prime contractor or another subcontractor as a part of this solicitation.

b) The instructions to offerors states any subcontractor that will be responsible for 10 percent or more of the proposed effort must submit separate Cost/Price volumes in accordance with the guidelines given to the prime contractor/Offeror. Additional instructions for the treatment of subcontractors who are responsible for 10 percent or more of the proposed effort are detailed in section L. Para 6.1.6 of the solicitation.

c) Yes, the instructions for requirements of subcontractors who are responsible for 10 percent or more of the proposed effort are detailed in Section L. Para 6.1.6 of the solicitation.

d) If the offeror has identified a first-tier subcontractor as performing any of the work in Section Table 4-1, then the offeror must have an LOI or TA for between the offeror and that subcontractor. If not, then Section L, paragraph 3.10 (b) and (c) apply. This requirement is irrespective of the proposed subcontractor’s percentage of the overall effort or how the Cost team evaluates them.

N

173 SOO 4.3.5, 4.7.3, 5.3.5, 5.7.3 In the WBS for both LRIP and FRP there are two elements for

Conferences. In LRIP, the elements are 4.3.5 and 4.7.3, and in FRP the elements are 5.3.5 and 5.7.3. There is a single element covering conferences in EMD, 3.3.5. Several requirements in the SOO describe meetings and conferences but are allocated to other WBS elements than the above;

accordingly we have interpreted 3.3.5, 4.3.5, 4.7.3, 5.3.5, and 5.7.3 as applying to meetings and conferences outside the program scope defined in the WBS.

We have allocated costs for the conferences and meetings required by the SOO to the relevant WBS elements in the SOO. For instance, the costs for the ILSWG defined in SOO paragraph 3.1.6.1 and provisioning guidance conferences defined in 3.1.6.3 are allocated to WBS 3.5.4 rather than 3.3.5.

1. Is this the correct interpretation of these WBS elements?

2. What is the distinction between the LRIP elements 4.3.5 and 4.7.3?

3. What is the distinction between FRP elements 5.4.5 and 5.7.3?

WBSs 3.3.5, 4.35, 4.7.3, 5.3.5 and 5.7.3 were originally intended to collect costs related to design reviews, program management reviews and other conferences, like provisioning, during different phases of the contract. We now realize that Offerors may not choose to separate these costs from the other WBS elements, as is pointed out in this question. Therefore, use of the Conferences WBS items are optional. Recognize that it is fully expected that the travel costs associated with attending reviews/conferences must be included in the Travel WBSs and that the effort of preparing for and attending reviews/conferences must be accounted for somewhere in the proposal.

It is not expected that attendance at any outside conferences will berequired under this contract.

N

174 RFP Offeror's Library

We would like to provide some of the Mini Crypto unclassified offeror’s library to a team member. The distribution statement is “F”, do they need to request the CD directly from you?

The prime/lead is not authorized to share any Program information until approval is obtained through the Contracting

Officer. The prime/lead must first contact HNCKA for authorization prior to subcontracting (reference block 14 on the DD Form 254).

Include the Team Member's name, CAGE code, address, and FSO contact information in the request.

Once approval has been obtained (for teaming), the prime/lead must notify HNCKA in writing (email is acceptable) of which CD-ROMs that will be provided to the subcontractor/team member, prior to the transfer. Both requests can be submitted simultaneously to expedite processing.

N

175 SOO 3.1.6.11

SOO 3.1.6.11 is an EMD task but references WBS 4.9 which is a WBS element for LRIP. Is

SOO 3.1.6.11 redundant with SOO 3.2.6.5 which also references WBS 4.9?

SOO Paragraph 3.1.6.11 is deleted.

SOO Paragraphs 3.2.6.5 and 3.3.4.5 updated in the latest Section L available in Amendment 4. All telephone support should be during the LRIP and FRP phases.

N

176 RFP Offeror's Library

In the last set of Q&As the answer to Question #172 stated that a new SOO element would be added as 3.2.6.7.. We did not receive such a change. Is one forthcoming?

3.2.6.7 was added in the previously published version of the SOO.

N

UNCLASSIFIED

Aprroved for Public Release Distribution Unlimited

UNCLASSIFIED

7/18/2014, 11:12 AM

Comment

Number Document

Page/Section/

Paragraph Question/Comment Recommendation

Response Amendment

(Y/N)

177 RFP Can the USAF kindly provide a conformed copy of the solicitation?

No, all documents forming the model contract can be found on FBO.

N

178 Section L Para 2.3.9.3(b)

Section L, Paragraph 2.3.9.3 (b) indicates that Offerors shall provide the Integrated

Master Schedule (IMS) in Microsoft Project 2003. Will the USG accept the IMS in a later version of Microsoft Project? The concern is saving the item in MP 2003, but it losing functionality.

Yes, the IMS may be submitted in Microsoft Project 2010. This was updated in the latest Section L available in Amendment 4. N

179 Section L Para 3.8

Section L, Paragraph 3.8, Model Contract/Reps and Certifications. To clarify, in the response is the Offeror to provide only Section A, B and F? (This would seem to make sense if there are no changes to the other sections).

Offerors shall comply with the instructions as stated and acknowledge each section of solicitation. N

180 Section L Para 3.8.10 Section L, Paragraph 3.8.10 List of Attachments. To clarify is the Offeror to respond with all attachments, even those without changes – ie CDRLs Exhibits A –F?

Offerors shall comply with the instructions as stated and acknowledge each section of solicitation. N

181 SRD v2.0 Para 3.67

Ref SRDv2.0, para 3.67, MC-85 and MC-86. Please provide the specific government standard or methodology that should be used to calculate survival rate for the Mini

Crypto module. Also, please define the following: survival rate, operated continuously.

The probability of survival should be calculated as S(t)=exp(-λt). SRD should state probability of survival not survival rate. MC-85 and MC-

86 will be adjusted accordingly. The probability of survival is the probability that a MC will survive after operating continuously for the specified amount of time.

This will be included in Amendment 5. The MINI CRYPTO Systems

Requirements Document (SRD) at Attachment 5 is sensitive and will be transmitted only to qualified offerors. Please refer to the

Instruction to Offerors, Section L, paragraph 2.1.3, for instructions on becoming a qualified offeror. If qualified, the SRD will be transmitted to offerors via encrypted email or AMRDEC system, more information about AMRDEC can be found here:

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/

Y

182 SOO Para 3.2.6.5

3.2.6.5 The Offeror shall provide telephone support to AFLCMC/HNCC on software problems and installation support to Government and non-Government personnel.

Support should be provided as two man-years for a 12 month Period of Performance or one man-year for a 6 month period of performance. For purposes of this proposal, a man-year is specified as 1860 hours. Offeror will maintain a problem reporting system which formally logs all problems reported by the Government and tracks the problem until resolved and provides a resolution description.

The Offeror shall provide a running log monthly which includes at a minimum, initiator of request, date/time of request, POC for request, issue, tracking reference, and detailed resolution description.

REF: Changes in 3.2.6.5 LRIP SOO above

Question:

From the April SOO to the May revision, the text highlighted above was added.

Specifically the yellow text specifies that the support could be for a period of 6 months

(“or one man-year for a 6 month period of performance”). Since the period of support required for the second FRP option in CLIN 16 is 6 months, we are assuming the text highlighted in yellow above refers to this 6 month option of support, and is not the LRIP portion in the SOO. Please confirm this was the intent.

SOO Paragraph 3.1.6.11 is deleted.

SOO Paragraphs 3.2.6.5 and 3.3.4.5 updated in the latest Section L available in Amendment 4. All telephone support should be during the LRIP and FRP phases.

N

183 CDRL E0016

Amendment 3 modified block 12, initial submission, for CDRL

E016 but also deleted block 13, which defines the resubmission requirements. Are the intended resubmission requirements for E016 the same as in the previous version

("Second report shall be submitted NLT 30 calendar days following DT&E. Final submission due NLT 15 calendar days after completion of PCA.") or something different?

E016 has changed from a 3 deliveries to a single delivery., Block 10

The updated DD 1423 for E016 is included in Amendment 5 and Block

13 now says N/A.

Y

184 Section L Para 2.3.9.3(b) Section states IMS shall be MS Project 2010, where previously only 2003 was allowed. Is

MS Project 2007 acceptable?

Yes, the IMS may be submitted in any version of Microsoft Project between 2003 - 2010.

N

UNCLASSIFIED

Aprroved for Public Release Distribution Unlimited