Draft_RFP_Industry_Questions_Posted_23_JAN_2019.pdf

As of 1/23/2019

SOF PR and RD MACM IDIQ Solicitation No.: FA8509-19-R-0002

Questions and Answers

For Official Use Only Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

No. Vendor Question Government Response 1 At the Pre-solicitation conference and in the Q&As that were released yesterday there is reference to a slick SOF C-130J configuration. Can you give industry an explanation of the differences between a C-130J and a slick SOF C-130J? There is no definition of what a slick SOF C- 130J configuration is in the sample task.

A slick C-130J refers to a Lockheed Martin produced C-130J aircraft coming off of the production line. A SOF C-130J refers to the SOF variants (AC/HC/MC/EC) of C-130J.

For the sample task effort, proposed solutions will occur on a slick C-130J configuration as a common baseline for the SOF scenario.

2 With your release of the additional draft RFP docs, are we to assume that this is the “2 week notice” before a Final RFP is released? Or, is that notice forthcoming?

No "2 week notice" before final RFP will be given as that was only to occur if we did not post any further drafts. No "2 week notice" will be posted since we provided a draft RFP.

3 if we have any additional questions on the draft RFP docs (i.e., not technical related queries), what is the deadline for submitting those questions?

Non-technical questions can be submitted up until the release of the RFP, but it is strongly encouraged to submit questions sooner rather than later.

4 Recommend CPFF CLINs be added for the following contract line items to provide the Government with more flexibility in pricing types/arrangements that may occur at the delivery/task order level:

"Production Kit Installation", "Provisioning", "Program Management", and "Initial Spares".

Section B has been updated to include the recommended CPFF CLINs.

5 Recommend changing the SOW Reference for CLIN 0027 Transportation from 3.3 to 3.3.2

The CLIN name has been revised to Kit Packaging, Handling, Shipping, & Transportation to cover all elements of SOW Paragraph 3.3.

6 Recommend adding a CPFF CLIN for Over and Above (O&A) to cover work discovered during the course of performing SOF aircraft modifications and kit installations. Also, recommend adding clause DFARS 252.217-7028 to RFP Section I; and, a paragraph in the SOW that specifies O&A work will be performed in accordance with DCMA -- INST 328, approved by the Government (ACO), and completed by the Contractor.

Two CLINs for FFP and CPFF requirements have been included in Section B. The clause at DFARS 252.217-7028 will be included in the Final RFP clauses. A SOW reference will be included in the Final RFP.

7 Recommend changing the Description of CLINs 0011 and 0012 (i.e., Test Procedures) to “Aircraft Integration Support and Check-out” since this is a more accurate description of the work to be priced under these CLINs. “Test Procedures” is a misleading contract line item description/reference since these documents are covered under various CDRLs including A00A, A00B, and A01Y.

Section B has been updated to rename the appropriate CLINs to Testing, Test Support, & Aircraft Integration Support.

Solicitation No.: FA8509-19-R-0002

Questions and Answers

For Official Use Only Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

No. Vendor Question Government Response 8 Request clarification on the inclusion of CLINs 0016 and 0017

(Government Furnished Property/Contract Acquired Property).

Typically, GFP/CAP are not actual contract line items or CLINs on a contract. In some cases where additional GFP/CAP is required, the Offeror shall include the sum of the total rental values per FAR 45.1 and 45.2 - and this is used by the Government as part of the overall pricing evaluation. Since this would be evaluated at the D/TO level, we recommend CLINs 0016 and 0017 be deleted from the basic IDIQ contract.

These CLINs will remain on the basic contract so each are available for inclusion on any orders as needed.

9 Request clarification on the pricing of data deliverables (CDRLs). The Data items listed under CLIN 0031 are “FFP” while SOW paragraph

5.3.1 states, “The sequence number for each not separately priced CDRL will begin with an “A”. CDRLs that are separately priced will begin with a ”B”.” Therefore, we recommend the “A” CDRLs be changed from “FFP” to “NSP” to comply with this statement in the SOW, and a new CDRL list be added with “B” sequence CDRLs shown as “FFP”.

Section B has been updated to reflect Exhibit A for those CDRLs not Separately Priced, and Exhibit B for the Separately Priced CDRLs.

Solicitation No.: FA8509-19-R-0002

Questions and Answers

For Official Use Only Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

No. Vendor Question Government Response 10 Section L-900, Paragraph II.A.2:

a. Is there a font size limit for drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. Normally this is limited to 10 point font.

b. Will each 11"x17" fold-out page count as 2 pages or 1 page for page limit compliance?

c. Please confirm the Volume II proposal narrative is single spaced throughout.

d. Since each proposal Volume will be separately bound, what tabbed sections are required in each Volume? Reference statement, "Each volume within the proposal notebook shall be separately tabbed and identified."

e. Reference statement. “… each page within a volume shall be numbered consecutively”. If an Offeror is submitting technical proposals in Volume II for Pool A and Pool B, should the page numbering re-start at #1 for the Pool B technical proposal narrative?

f. Is it permissible to cross-reference similar or identical narrative between technical proposals in both Pools? Or, does each technical proposal “stand-alone” for Government review and evaluation purposes?

g. Reference statement, “…the offeror shall provide an electronic copy of the technical proposal in Word format.” What version of Word is acceptable and is this file to be included on the CD-R or DVD-R disk(s)?

a. The font size specified in Section L -900 is 12 point font.

b. This paragraph has been updated to include: Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets shall not be greater than 11” x 17”, but must fold within the page size specified, shall not exceed 11”x17”, and shall count as one (1) page.

Pages printed on one (1) side shall count as one (1) page, and pages printed on both sides shall count as two (2) pages.

c. Print will be single spaced throughout.

d. Language has been revised to read "Each volume within the proposal notebook shall be separately tabbed and identified."

e. As each page shall be numbered consecutively, the page count will not restart to "1" for Pool B, but shall not exceed 40 pages.

f. No cross-referencing among the two Pools will be considered. Each Technical Proposal "stands alone".

g. Microsoft Word 2010.

Solicitation No.: FA8509-19-R-0002

Questions and Answers

For Official Use Only Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

No. Vendor Question Government Response 11 Section L-900 paragraph II.A.4

a. Recommend clarifying the first sentence to state that the page limitation is 40 pages if the Offeror submits a technical proposal for either Pool A or Pool B, and is 80 pages if the Offeror submits a technical proposal for both Pool A and Pool B.

b. Request clarification on the Government’s definition of “cover page” and “cover sheet”. Reference statements: “…The page limitations include any cover page, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams,…”; and “A cover sheet should be used to clearly mark the volume number,…”.

Please confirm that: a) that a cover page is not required and if the Offeror chooses to use one, it will be counted in the page limit, and b) a cover sheet is required and it is not included in the page limitation.

c. Recommend deleting the term “if utilized” in the following statement, “.. or list of acronyms (if utilized)” - since the previous paragraph requires a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms for each Volume.

a. The 40 Page limit is for each separate pool and will be clarified on the final RFP.

b. This will be corrected to cover page. It is not required and does count towards the page limit. This language will be updated on the Final RFP.

c. Concur.

12 Section L-900 paragraph II.A.8

a. Please confirm that it is acceptable to add this legend (Source Selection Information) within the 1 inch margin at the bottom of each page (i.e., in the footer section).

b. Please also confirm that this legend is not required at the top of each sheet.

a. Concur.

b. Concur.

13 Section L-900 paragraph II.B.1a.

Recommend deleting this phrase from the last sentence, “including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP” since CLIN pricing will not be submitted with Section B in this proposal.

Concur. This language will be removed.

14 Section L-900 paragraph II.C.1

a. Since the Consolidated Bill of Material (CBOM) and Basis of Estimate (BOE) are required to be submitted as an Excel spreadsheet;

please confirm that they are not required in the paper copy of Volume II. If required in paper copy, please advise if these tables should be added as a separate attachment/appendix to Volume II.

b. Please advise if the CBOM and BOE are separate spreadsheet files, or separate worksheets/tabs within a spreadsheet file.

c. Please confirm if separate Excel spreadsheet files are required for Pool A and Pool B technical proposals.

a. A paper copy is not required. Only an electronic copy will be considered.

b. The CBOM and BOE need to be in the same Excel file, on different tabs.

c. Each Pool "stands-alone". A separate Excel spreadsheet file is required for the Pool A and Pool B technical proposals.

Solicitation No.: FA8509-19-R-0002

Questions and Answers

For Official Use Only Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

No. Vendor Question Government Response 15 The CBOM and BOE are not addressed in Section M. How will the

CBOM and BOE be evaluated for technical acceptability and used to determine “qualifying offeror(s)” per Section M and Class Deviation 2018-O0006?

The CBOM and BOE are necessary to support the proposed technical solution/approach.

This will be clarified in the final RFP.

16 The hardware CBOM and labor BOE are fundamental pricing elements used by Offerors to develop a cost/price proposal in response to a Government RFP. Consequently, we believe the Government is inadvertently adding a cost/price evaluation to determine technical acceptability and qualifying offeror(s). Therefore we recommend deletion of the CBOM and BOE from the RFP requirements.

The CBOM and BOE are necessary to support the proposed technical solution/approach.

No costs/rates/prices should be provided in response to the RFP.

17 In the latest version of Section M, the following NOTE was changed from “NOTE: This Subfactor is for verification of expertise purposes only” to “Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Expertise is for verification purposes only”. We are still unclear on what “verification purposes only” means with respect to the Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings. Please confirm that in order to be considered awardable, the Offeror must receive an “Acceptable” rating in Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Expertise by demonstrating technical experience that complies with the explicit requirements stated in Subfactor Three, Sub-paragraph 1 for POOL-A Fixed Wing and/or POOL-B Rotary Wing.

Confirmed. In order to be considered awardable, the Offeror must receive an "Acceptable" rating in Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Experience, by demonstrating technical experience that complies with the explicit requirements stated in Subfactor Three, sub-paragraph 1 for for POOL-A Fixed Wing and/or POOL-B Rotary Wing.

18 RFP does not specifically acknowledge opportunity for teaming, though acknowledges JV and Prime/Subcontract relationship. Documentation (Q&A) does state that offerors, regardless of composition, provide their technical experience. Please confirm that teaming is acceptable and that within Subfactor three that experience from all teammates can be used in response.

Section L, Paragraph I.A. provides that if a joint venture arrangement exists for this acquisition, the offeror shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement that is signed and dated by all joint venture members as part of the proposal submission.

As defined in FAR 9.601, a contractor team arrangement means an arrangement in which two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractor under a specified Government contract or acquisition program. Using this definition, teaming is acceptable, and experience from all teammates can be used in response to Subfactor three.

19 RFP does not specifically acknowledge opportunity for teaming, though acknowledges JV and Prime/Subcontract relationship. Please confirm that offeror can submit for team as team lead, but also be part of additional team as team member.

Confirmed.

Solicitation No.: FA8509-19-R-0002

Questions and Answers

For Official Use Only Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

No. Vendor Question Government Response 20 Section L, Vol 1 within General states … Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP. Section M states that PCO has waived cost/price evaluation. Please confirm that request for proposed prices will be removed in final RFP.

Confirmed.

21 Section L, Vol 1 within number 2. ACA states … the offeror shall identify and provide all ACAs … in accordance with SOW paragraph 3.22.1, as an attachment to the RFP. SOW para 3.22.1 implies an ACA is required to be established and maintained with major subcontractors which traditionally is not the intent of an ACA as subcontract provides for flowing down allocated and derived requirements and defining specific areas of responsibilities. For teaming approach, a teaming agreement would provide general areas of responsibility and each task order response would provide proposal indicating specific area of responsibilities. Traditionally, an “Associate Contractor Agreement” is an agreement between contractors working on contract project that specify requirements for them to share information, data, technical knowledge, expertise, or resources. What is USAF intent with this request?

Associated Contractor Agreements are not required for the sample tasks as these will not be awarded, but may be a requirement on future orders that meet the applicability criteria of AFFARS IG5317.9000 Associate Contractor Agreements.

This language will be deleted from Section L.

22 Section L, Vol 2 within General states … shall contain CBOM w/Quantities, Labor Hours and Categories (submitted in electronic sortable format (Excel spreadsheet)). Please confirm USAF intent that these can be provided as attachment or appendices to submittal and will not count against technical proposal page limit. An imbedded Excel (electronically sortable) within Volume 2 would be cumbersome, if possible, and adversely impact page limit based on substantial CBOM listing along with proposed hours and labor categories.

A paper copy is not required. Only an electronic copy will be considered, and will not count against the technical proposal page limit.

The CBOM and BOE need to be in the same Excel file, on different tabs.

Solicitation No.: FA8509-19-R-0002

Questions and Answers

For Official Use Only Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

No. Vendor Question Government Response 23 Section L, Volume 2 Subfactor 3 Aircraft Mod Exp indicates …illustrate expertise, capabilities, and capacities relative to any requirements/engineering services specified in Draft SOW. With understanding that RFP requires that experience to include at least three of four elements (design, integration, installation, test), does USAF expect offeror to show experience for all SOW paragraphs or just those called out in sample tasks. Two examples, (1) Draft SOW has software capability requirement where sample task excludes software requirement. Does experience need to show software experience? (2) Draft SOW has facilities requirement which is not required for sample tasks. Does RFP response need to show facilities within subfactor three?

The expectation is for offerors to outline aircraft modification experience in the four elements (design, integration, installation, test) versus attempting to draw a correlation to specific SOW paragraphs or the sample task. This third subfactor is for Contractors to provide some credence to their demonstrated abilities. Experience is the opportunity to define past events and modifications, regardless of airframe.

No, the offeror should address the sample task only. The draft SOW was provided to outline the expectations within the broader context of efforts that may be awarded within ID/IQ. Software experience will be outlined with an order with software requirements is released for proposal. The Government will ensure offeror’s are compliant with the SOW requirements for the orders based on the requirements specific to the order and the

MACM ID/IQ SOW.

No, subfactor three is explicit with the requirement to outline aircraft modification experience in three (3) of the four (4) following elements: Design; Integration; Installation;

and Test…”

24 Please confirm that if offeror is submitting for both Pool A and Pool B that expectation is within Volume 2 that there will be a Section A that has page limit of 40 pages and then a Section B that has page limit of 40 pages.

Pool A has a 40 page limit, and Pool B has a separate, 40 page limit.

25 What defines a major subcontractor as referenced in section 3.22.1 of the SOW?

In accordance with FAR 15.404-3(c), a major subcontractor is determined when the subcontract value is the lower of either:

(1) $13.5 million or more; or

(2) Both more than the pertinent certified cost or pricing data threshold and more than 10 percent of the prime contractor's proposed price.

26 Will associated contractor agreements (ACA) be required at proposal submission for proposed major subcontractors? IG5317.9000 states under Applicability that “(a) Prime contractor to subcontractor relationships do not constitute ACAs” and “(b) The contracting officer may require ACAs when contractors working on separate government contracts must cooperate, share resources or otherwise jointly participate in working on contracts or projects.”

Associated Contractor Agreements are not required for the sample tasks as these will not be awarded, but may be a requirement on future orders.

Solicitation No.: FA8509-19-R-0002

Questions and Answers

For Official Use Only Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

No. Vendor Question Government Response 27 Section L - II. Volume Organization:

Section L paragraph II.C.1 states that Volume II should include the Consolidated Bill of Material (CBOM) and Basis of Estimate (BOE) submitted in Excel format. However, offerors are instructed to submit an electronic copy of the technical proposal in Word format, and the CBOM and BOE are not accounted for in the proposal organization table and page limitations. Please confirm that:

1) a separate Excel file should be submitted as an attachment to the electronic technical volume for each Pool being proposed on (i.e., one CBOM and BOE for Pool A, and one CBOM and BOE for Pool B);

2) the CBOM and BOE are excluded from the page limitations set forth for each pool; and

3) and hard copies of the CBOM and BOE should be included as attachments included in the bound paper copy of Volume II.

1. Each Pool "stands-alone". A separate Excel spreadsheet file is required for the Pool A and Pool B technical proposals.

2. The electronic CBOM and BOE are excluded from page limitations.

3. A paper copy is not required. Only an electronic copy will be considered.

28 Section L Subfactor 1 Par. B (FW & RW) Are the engineering analysis’s for all 7 items in table 1 “Technical Factors” required to be accomplished and submitted in the proposal?

Some read this as “ tell the government the steps you would take to do the analysis” others read it as “do the actual analysis for all 7 items and include in the proposal submittal”.

The intent is to answer the "Design Output" column in that table, and then in that subfactor provide a detailed narrative describing the overall solution. In the description of the overall solution, respondents would provide the details on how it reached those "design output" results. Those "design outputs" are what is being utilized as a technical grading scale. This will be clarified within the RFP.

Sheet1