Pre-Solicitation_Conference_Q&A.pdf

Pre-Solicitation Conference Q&A Dated : 30 November, 2018

DATE

RFP #

TITLE

Q&A #

REFERENCE

(SOW PARAGRAPH, CLIN STRUCTURE, GFI etc.) INDUSTRY QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 System Architecture Analysis (Sample tasks Cyber sections FW 3.20.15 and RW 3.22.8)

These sections mention an “{aircraft} Architecture Analysis Report.” The SOW and sample tasks do not reference this report elsewhere. Will this report be provided as GFI?

No GFI will be provided to complete the sample tasks, with the exception of ELA for the Rotary Sample Task. The contractor should make assumptions and outline those assumptions within their respective proposals.

Cybersecurity Implementation (Sample tasks Cyber sections FW 3.20.1 and RW 3.22.1)

Does the weapon system already have an Authority to Operate (ATO)? It is dependent upon the Weapon System. For this effort, the Contractor shall integrate DoDI 8510, Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT), procedures into all architecture, design, development, integration, and test processes and products. The Contractor shall implement the applicable cybersecurity controls through the systems engineering technical processes: stakeholder requirements definition;

requirements analysis; architecture design; implementation; integration; risk management; and verification and validation in accordance with the specific DO.

Cybersecurity Implementation (Sample tasks Cyber sections FW 3.20.1 and RW 3.22.1)

If the weapon system does not have an ATO, are we expected to complete an ATO on the weapon system? The Government does not expect the offerors to complete the weapon system ATOs. As part of the integration efforts within this ID/IQ, the Contractor shall integrate DoDI 8510, Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT), procedures into all architecture, design, development, integration, and test processes and products. The Contractor shall implement the applicable cybersecurity controls through the systems engineering technical processes: stakeholder requirements definition; requirements analysis; architecture design; implementation;

integration; risk management; and verification and validation in accordance with the specific DO.

Cybersecurity Implementation (Sample tasks Cyber sections FW 3.20.1 and RW 3.22.1)

If the weapon system has an ATO, does the weapon system have a military-appointed Authorizing Official currently assigned? Weapon System dependent; the AO may be military, civilian or A&AS Contractor. The ATO appointed Authorizing Official will be outlined within the orders, if applicable. For efforts within this Indefinite Deliver/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ), the Contractor shall integrate DoDI 8510, Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT), procedures into all architecture, design, development, integration, and test processes and products.

5 Cybersecurity Workforce (Sample tasks Cyber sections FW 3.20.2 and RW 3.22.2) What certification levels are the professionals expected to hold (IAM, IAT, IASE, CSSP [Analyst, Infrastructure Support, Incident Responder] ), CSSP (Auditor/Manager)?

IAW the MACM ID/IQ Statement of Work (SOW) para 3.8 & 3.32, the Contractor shall determine employee certification levels/requirements to provide the required support required within each order requiring cybersecurity.

6 Draft SOW Cybersecurity Workforce (3.8.1) What certifications held by the prime contractor are required of the sub-contractor? IAW SOW para 3.8 & 3.32, the Contractor shall determine employee certification levels/requirements to provide the required support required within each order requiring cybersecurity.

7 Draft SOW Cybersecurity Workforce (3.8.1) What certification levels are the professionals expected to hold (IAM, IAT, IASE, CSSP [Analyst, Infrastructure Support, Incident Responder] ), CSSP (Auditor/Manager)?

IAW SOW para 3.8 & 3.32, the Contractor shall determine employee certification levels/requirements to provide the required support required within each order requiring cybersecurity.

8 Draft SOW, 3.4 Counterfeit Electronic Parts DFARS 252.246-7007 applies only to Large Businesses. This acquisition is a total Small Business Set-Aside. Will the requirements of this DFARS clause be imposed on the Small Business awardee?

The Government will remove the reference for DFARS 252.246-7007. DFARS 252.246-7008, Sources of Electronic Parts will be utilized and enforced for SBs within this effort.

Draft SOW, 3.22 Subcontractor Management The plan required by FAR 52.219-9 does not address management of subcontractors, it is a plan that establishes goals for subcontracting to small businesses. Is this paragraph intended to establish a management plan? If so, recommend removing the clause reference and adding requirement for subcontractor management plan.

The Government will remove the reference for FAR 52.219-9 from the SOW. Within the orders, you may be asked to submit a subcontracting management plan for the evaluation of competitive offers, and the Government may evaluate the subcontracting approach along with the identified factors.

Draft SOW, 3.22 Subcontractor Management FAR 52.219-9 applies to Large Business only. This acquisition is a total Small Business Set-Aside. Will this requirement be imposed on the SB awardee?

The Government will remove the reference for FAR 52.219-9 from the SOW. Within the orders, you may be asked to submit a subcontracting management plan for the evaluation of competitive offers, and the Government may evaluate the subcontracting approach along with the identified factors.

Draft SOW, 4.9 Earned Value Management The SOW states "For DOs requiring EVM, the contractor shall have a DCMA compliant Earned Value Management System". DCMA will only validate

EVMS on DOs above $100M. Will the "DCMA Compliant" requirement only apply to DOs above the threshold?

EVMS surveillance shall be conducted at all contractor sites where EVM systems are implemented for contracts valued over $20M containing the proper EVMS FAR or DFARS clause. Offeror’s should reference DCMA EVMS Compliance procedures. (http://www.dcma.mil/HQ/EVMS/)

12 Fixed Wing Sample Task Aircraft baseline: The task only states “C-130J”, please identify if this is an MC-130J, AC-130J or EC-130J. The sample task references a slick SOF C-130J configuration. Future orders on this IDIQ will outline the specific Military Designation Series (MDS).

Fixed Wing Sample Task The SOF team altitude is given as 3000ft AGL and aircraft altitude is given as 16000ft AGL. Is it the Government’s intention to imply that the aircraft overflies the team at 16,000 ft AGL (i.e. the SOF team is on the ground) or to provide both altitudes as MSL (meaning the aircraft overflies the team by 13,000 ft)?

All values were given in Above Ground Level (AGL).

Fixed Wing Sample Task Is the updated intelligence package available for download while the aircraft is in the air but prior to it arriving at the SOF team? Section 2.0 provides a 90 second window to transfer the 20MB file. Does the file have to be downloaded via SIPR and transferred to the ground within this 90 seconds or can we assume that the file is already downloaded via SIPR and the 90 second window includes only the time necessary to download it to the ground.

The data package will be transmitted to the SOF team within 90 seconds.

15 Fixed Wing Sample Task Section 2.1 provides a time period of 3 minutes while section 2.0 provides a time period of 90 seconds. Which is the Government’s requirement? Both requirements are necessary for their respective specification.

16 Fixed Wing Sample Task Section 3.1.1 requires coverage analyses but there isn’t a defined requirement for coverage area. Is the Government’s intent to only document the design's actual coverage area or is there a minimum coverage required for the design?

The contractor will document the design's actual coverage area.

17 Fixed Wing Sample Task Section 3.5: No actual baseline or requirement for maintaining a particular MAC is levied. Is this Government’s intent? The Government declines to answer.

18 Fixed Wing Sample Task Section 3.9: States “DO-106E, F, G” is this intended to be “DO-160”? Yes.

19 Fixed Wing Sample Task Section 3.9: Will the equivalent MIL-STD-810 requirements be suitable alternatives for DO-160 testing? The latest revision of DO-160 Section 20 is the minimum requirement.

20 Fixed Wing Sample Task Section 3.21: Do any connections made to existing aircraft systems need to include red/black separation? If we need to connect to existing aircraft busses, can these be considered red or do we need to have proper safeguards between the connections?

Yes.

21 Fixed Wing Sample Task Section 3.20.8: Is the intent here that we can flow this down to OEMs and not that we have to actually screen and test COTS units we receive? COTS must be verified as tested to meet minimum requirements.

22 Fixed Wing Section L What does a link budget with no units and a min value of 0 max of 2 mean? 0 is unacceptable, 1 is acceptable, and 2 is objective. Scores are based on Government evaluation.

23 Fixed Wing Section L Subfactor 1, Element 3: Time to Transfer Data Package: throughout the documents, multiple times are given including 90 seconds, 2 minutes (in Section L), and 3 minutes. Please clarify which is correct.

Each requirement is necessary for its respective specification.

24 Fixed Wing Section L Subfactor 1, Element 7: Determining if LOS in range for at least 3 minutes requires some amount of detail about the receiver equipment (SOF team).

Will the contractor be able to get access to the Next Gen Handheld data to allow this calculation?

The Government will not provide data concerning the Next Gen Handheld device. The Contractor will be responsible to acquire necessary specifications required to support their proposed solution.

Rotary Wing Sample Task The SOF team altitude is given as 3000ft AGL and aircraft altitude is given as 16000ft AGL. Is it the Government’s intention to imply that the aircraft overflies the team at 16,000 ft AGL (i.e. the SOF team is on the ground) or to provide both altitudes as MSL (meaning the aircraft overflies the team by 13,000 ft)?

The values were given in Above Ground Level (AGL).

26 Rotary Wing Sample Task Section 3.1.1 requires coverage analyses but there isn’t a defined requirement for coverage area. Is the Government’s intent to only document the design's actual coverage area or is there a minimum coverage required for the design?

The contractor will document the design's actual coverage area.

27 Rotary Wing Sample Task Section 3.9: States “DO-106E, F, G” is this intended to be “DO-160”? Yes, the Government will update the sample task.

28 Rotary Wing Sample Task Section 3.9: Will the equivalent MIL-STD-810 requirements be suitable alternatives for DO-160 testing? The latest version of DO-160 section 20 will be the minimum requirement.

12/17/2018

FA8509-19-R-0002 (DRAFT)

SOF/PR Multiple Award Contract for Modifications

CONTRACTOR QUESTIONS

Dated : 30 November, 2018

DATE

RFP #

TITLE last reviewed by AR 17 Dec 2018 0700.

Q&A #

REFERENCE

(SOW PARAGRAPH, CLIN STRUCTURE, GFI etc.) INDUSTRY QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

12/3/2018

FA8509-19-R-0002 (DRAFT)

SOF/PR Multiple Award Contract for Modifications

29 Rotary Wing Sample Task Section 3.22.4e: Is the intent here that we can flow this down to OEMs and not that we have to actually screen and test COTS units we receive. COTS must be verified and tested to meet minimum requirements.

Rotary Wing Section L Subfactor 1, Element 1: The requirement given is in link margin. Calculating link margin requires details on the receiver. Although the unit of the receiver is given (next gen handheld), we need details on the receiver sensitivity to calculate margin. Can Government provide this number?

The Government will not provide this information.

31 Rotary Wing Section L Subfactor 1: Element 3: Data package size is listed as Mb instead of MB as is stated in sample task. Can Government clarify intent? The Government will correct the typographical error to MB.

Rotary Wing Section L Subfactor 1: Element 3: The rotary wing requirement is given as time to receive the package from BLOS versus the fixed wing is time to transmit package of LOS to ground. I believe intent for rotary would be time to transmit to ground, can Government verify these subfactors are correct between fixed and rotary?

Rotary Wing Subfactor 1: Element 3 outlines the requirement to receive the 20 MB data package from BLOS.

33 Rotary Wing Section L Subfactor 1: Determining if LOS in range for at least 3 minutes requires some amount of detail about the receiver equipment (SOF team). Will the contractor be able to get access to the Next Gen Handheld data to allow this calculation?

The Government will not provide data concerning the Next Gen Handheld device. The Contractor will be responsible to acquire necessary specifications required to support their proposed solution.

34 General What will be required submittal elements/structure? For example; will a Tech Volume addressing SOW requirement be part of the evaluation in addition to the evaluation of the Sample Task submittals?

Yes, a tech volume will be required and will be identified within the final RFP. There will be no volumes for cost/price or past performance.

Sample Tasks Sections M Sample task indicates Technically Acceptable or Not Acceptable for eval criteria. What is the total cadre of factors that will be evaluated in the solicitation and what is the weighting? E.g.; Tech vs Past Performance vs Pricing.

The acquisition strategy for the Multiple Award Contract for Modifications (MACM) ID/IQ is to utilize a class deviation(2018-O0006). Under this deviation, a qualifying offeror is an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source and submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation. This deviation permits PCOs to evaluate cost or price only at the order level as long as the multiple-awards contract is for the same or similar services and a contract award was made to each and all qualifying offerors. The Government is not evaluating "past performance".

36 Draft SOW, 2.7 Government Systems Would you consider adding access to CDRL-VUE or similar system for delivery of controlled documentation. No, not at the onset of this effort. The SOF/PR & Rotary Division does not possess licenses for CDRL VUE.

37 Draft SOW, 3.9 Engineering Is it anticipated that this IDIQ might have delivery orders that require transmittal of classified material? Yes, within the orders requiring transmission of classified information will provide the appropriate DDForm 254.

Draft SOW, 3.1.1 Contract/Order Period of Performance Could you clarify POP and option years? Is it 12 months with four additional 12 month option periods? Reference SOW para “3.1.1 Contract/Order Period of Performance: The ID/IQ will consist of seven (7) years and include a three (3) year basic period with two (2) option periods consisting of two (2) years each. The PoP will be determined on each order, however no order may exceed seven (7) years.

However, orders may be placed from date of award through 24 months after exercise of the last option.

Fixed Wing Sample Task 3.20.9, Rotary Wing Sample Task 3.22.4.f Please identify the scope of the demonstration via testing that can be used to prove systems are free of intentional defects and malicious design alterations. It appears to be a next to impossible task unless the scope is bounded per Fixed Wing 3.20.8, Rotary Wing 3.22.4.e, respectively. Is demonstration of proper operation enough to prove the cryptographic system is acceptable?

COTS must be verified as tested to meet the minimum requirements.

40 Draft SOW, 1.2, 2.3, 3.8, 3.26.745) What is the intent of having lined-through text in the referenced paragraphs? The DRAFT document referenced contained text identified for possible inclusion and/or deletion within the final product.

Draft SOW, 3.25 Facilities Requirement How will the contractor's proposals be evaluated to assess the available facilities required per this paragraph? Facility requirements will be identified and evaluated by order. If the Government identifies facility requirements within the order, reference SOW para. 3.25 for the requirements. The associated compliance requirements (e.g., as 14 CFR Part 139, NAS 3306, AS 9110, AFI 10-220, NFPA 409) will be required and outlined within the respective order(s). The Government reserves the right to inspect facilities prior to contract award.

Draft SOW, 3.32 Quality Control Provisions How will the contractor's quality control program be evaluated by the government if it is not already certified to IAQG, SAE, ISO, or CMMI standards? These controls will be identified within the orders. Additionally, orders may establish additional quality control measures. The Contractor shall be responsible for the performance of quality control activities, ensuring the performance of products, subcontractors, and vendors. Specific quality requirements will be specified within the orders. The Government is responsible for order quality assurance and Performance Plans will be incorporated as specified within the orders. At the Government’s request, the Contractor shall provide their quality program manual, including a matrix tracing the provisions of quality management program (e.g., AS9100) requirements to the Contractor’s documented procedures.

43 Fixed Wing Sample Task Appendix A Government Documents Is the SSS (094-014673 Rev C) required and will it be provided as a part of the bidder's library? No, the document will be removed.

44 Rotary Wing Section M Table 1 Will the columns be aligned with the data and the data be updated to match the Section L data? Rotary Wing Section M, Table 1 will be updated to correspond with Section L, Table 1.

45 Fixed Wing Section L Table 1 What supporting documentation for the structural analysis and co-site analysis will be required to demonstrate understanding of the task? If reports are required, will they be excluded from the page count?

Reports are included in the page count and should summarize the methodology and solution.

46 No reference mentioned Will the contractor be required to perform Flight Operations Procedures or just support flight testing? The contractor will be required to support a Government ground and/or flight testing event(s) as required by each order.

47 No reference mentioned Will Prime contractors be restricted to the IDIQ level teams or can they form teams and add teammates at the delivery order level? Awardees will be able to form teams and add subcontractors at the order level (Reference subcontracting management plan requirements).

48 No reference mentioned Can subcontractors be added after Delivery Order award, if needed? Awardees will be able to form teams and add subcontractors at the order level (Reference subcontracting management plan requirements).

49 No reference mentioned Will the proposal only consist of the respective detailed narrative approach for the Sample Task(s) bid or will an additional overall technical approach for the Statement of Work be required?

The Government does not request an overall technical approach for the Statement of Work (SOW). Offerors shall be compliant with the ID/IQ SOW and will be evaluated based on the requirements of each order.

50 No reference mentioned Will a full Draft RFP (with instructions for proposal sections, page count, pricing, etc.) be released? The Government will provide the draft versions of the full sections L&M, clauses, and CLIN structure. The official RFP will be released ~ Q2/FY19, which will also contain the requested information.

Draft Section L (both), Para. 2 Will the Government provide additional information in regards to the style and format of proposals, such as desired volumes, number of copies, page count limitations (including exclusions for table of contents, addenda and similar), font size for body text, font sizes for tables/graphics, fold-out page limitations (size/content/number limit), etc. ?

The Government will provide the draft versions of the full sections L&M, clauses, and CLIN structure. The official RFP will be released ~ Q2/FY19, which will also contain the requested information.

Draft Section L (both), Para. 2 Is the Government anticipating offerors will submit supporting data for technical approaches, such as drawings or calculations, that would not be suitable to *.doc, *.docx, *.xls, *.xlsx or *.pdf submission? If so, will the Government provide a list of acceptable native and/or neutral file formats?

All data shall be delivered as outlined within the final RFP in a Microsoft® Office® compatible format (e.g.,*.doc, *.docx, *.xls, *.xlsx) or an Adobe Portable Document Format (*.pdf). No other formats will be accepted.

Draft Section L (both), Para. 2 Paragraph 2 states “the offerors proposal is based on the offerors assumptions.” In a fixed price environment, various assumptions can drastically affect proposed price. How does the Government plan to evaluate all offeror’s submitted pricing on level terms?

The acquisition strategy for the Multiple Award Contract for Modifications (MACM) ID/IQ is to utilize a class deviation(2018-O0006). Under this deviation, a qualifying offeror is an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source and submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation. This deviation permits PCOs to evaluate cost or price only at the order level as long as the multiple-awards contract is for the same or similar services and a contract award was made to each and all qualifying offerors. The Government is not evaluating "past performance".

Dated : 30 November, 2018

DATE

RFP #

TITLE last reviewed by AR 17 Dec 2018 0700.

Q&A #

REFERENCE

(SOW PARAGRAPH, CLIN STRUCTURE, GFI etc.) INDUSTRY QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

12/3/2018

FA8509-19-R-0002 (DRAFT)

SOF/PR Multiple Award Contract for Modifications

Draft Section M (both), Para. 2, Technical Rating The technical ratings in Section M only list acceptable and unacceptable ratings. Is it the intent of the Government to award this effort on a low price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis?

The acquisition strategy for the Multiple Award Contract for Modifications (MACM) ID/IQ is to utilize a class deviation(2018-O0006). Under this deviation, a qualifying offeror is an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source and submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation. This deviation permits PCOs to evaluate cost or price only at the order level as long as the multiple-awards contract is for the same or similar services and a contract award was made to each and all qualifying offerors. The Government is not evaluating "past performance".

Draft Section L (both), Para. 2, Technical Rating Paragraph 2 states “the offeror shall identify any risks associated with the proposed approach to the sample task and actions to be taken to mitigate that risk” Additionally, Section M states “The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability.” In a fixed price environment, risks and mitigation strategies can drastically affect the proposed price. An offeror could choose to ignore certain risks on their proposal in favor of submitting a lower price to secure an award. How does the Government plan to evaluate all offerors’ risks and mitigations with only an acceptable/unacceptable criteria?

The Government does not intend to evaluate price.

Draft Section M (both), Para. 1.1, Table 1 Table 1 includes both threshold and objective values. If the only ratings for each subfactor are acceptable/unacceptable, how will the Government evaluate different technical approaches where an offeror meets or exceeds objectives while another offeror only meets thresholds?

The Government will evaluate proposed solution based on the technical acceptance outlined in the technical threshold/objectives table. The Government only requires offerors to meet the requirement. There is no value added to exceeding the Government's stated minimum requirements.

Draft Section L (both), Subfactor three, Para. 1 Paragraph 2 states: “Within your technical experience as a prime contractor who either performed the work or managed subcontractors that performed the work…”. Based on this quote, is it the intent of the government to exclude teammate experience and experience of the small business offeror that was obtained as a subcontractor?

The intent of Subfactor three is to have offerors, regardless of composition, provide their technical experience. The Government will amend the text within subfactor three to allow offerors the ability to outline their experience within a broader context.

Draft FW Section L /Draft SOW Subfactor One, Technical Approach/Solution, 2.f. The Section L and MACM SOW are silent to the contractor's aircraft modification facilities requirements. Will compliance to aircraft/airfield regulations such as 14 CFR Part 139, NAS 3306, AS 9110, AFI 10-220, NFPA 409 for fueled aircraft, be required? If so will these requirements be added to section L and the MACM SOW?

Facility requirements will be identified and evaluated by order. If the Government identifies facility requirements within the order, reference SOW para. 3.25 for the requirements. The associated compliance requirements (e.g., as 14 CFR Part 139, NAS 3306, AS 9110, AFI 10-220, NFPA 409) will be required and outlined within the respective order(s). The Government will not inspect facilities prior to award of the ID/IQ. However, the Government reserves the right to inspect facilities prior to order award.

Draft RW Section L / Draft SOW Subfactor One, Technical Approach/Solution, 2.f.

The Section L and MACM SOW are silent to the contractor's aircraft modification facilities requirements. Will compliance to aircraft/airfield regulations such as 14 CFR Part 139, NAS 3306, AS 9110, AFI 10-220, NFPA 409 for fueled aircraft, be required? If so will these requirements be added to section L and the MACM SOW?

Facility requirements will be identified and evaluated by order. If the Government identifies facility requirements within the order, reference SOW para. 3.25 for the requirements. The associated compliance requirements (e.g., as 14 CFR Part 139, NAS 3306, AS 9110, AFI 10-220, NFPA 409) will be required and outlined within the respective order(s). The Government will not inspect facilities prior to award of the ID/IQ. However, the Government reserves the right to inspect facilities prior to order award.

Draft FW Section L Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Expertise, item 1 This section appears to limit the supporting documentation to Offerors that have performed as a Prime Contractor for aircraft modifications. This severely limits contractors that have performed modifications as a subcontractor to other entities such as the OEMs Lockheed and Sikorsky or performed as a subcontractor or JV Member on IDIQ efforts such as the Army's Production Integrations Facility (PIF) and Logistic Support Facilities LSFMA. Would the Government consider expanding this to include efforts where the Offeror could substantiate significant aircraft modifications experience on specific Mission Design Series or Type Model Series aircraft called out in the Draft RFP as a subcontractor or JV Member?

The Government will amend the text within subfactor three to allow offerors the ability to outline their experience within a broader context.

Draft RW Section L Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Expertise, item 1 This section appears to limit the supporting documentation to Offerors that have performed as a Prime Contractor for aircraft modifications. This severely limits contractors that have performed modifications as a subcontractor to other entities such as the OEMs Lockheed and Sikorsky or performed as a subcontractor or JV Member on IDIQ efforts such as the Army's Production Integrations Facility (PIF) and Logistic Support Facilities LSFMA. Would the Government consider expanding this to include efforts where the Offeror could substantiate significant aircraft modifications experience on specific Mission Design Series or Type Model Series aircraft called out in the Draft RFP as a subcontractor or JV Member?

The Government will amend the text within subfactor three to allow offerors the ability to outline their experience within a broader context.

Draft SOW Paragraph 1.1 The Objective list integration, trial installations, kit proof installations, and installation of aircraft modification kits. However there are no specific details of regulations or facilities requirements listed. If the Offeror does not possess these facilities, is the Offeror to define the required facility specifications, safety, and quality requirements for the Subcontractor or Team Mate?

Facility requirements will be identified and evaluated by order. If the Government identifies facility requirements within the order, reference SOW para. 3.25 for the requirements. The associated compliance requirements (e.g., as 14 CFR Part 139, NAS 3306, AS 9110, AFI 10-220, NFPA 409) will be required and outlined within the respective order(s). The Government will not inspect facilities prior to award of the ID/IQ. However, the Government reserves the right to inspect facilities prior to order award.

Draft SOW Paragraph 3.9.6 and 3.9.7 The SOW requires the manufacture of kits. However there are no specific details of quality requirements listed. If the Offeror does not possess these facilities, is the offeror to define the required facility specifications, safety, and quality requirements for the Subcontractor or Team Mate?

Yes, reference SOW para 3.32. “Quality Control Provisions: The Contractor shall provide and maintain a quality control program consistent with International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG) and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) AS 9100D Quality Management Systems – Requirements for Aviation, Space, and Defense Organizations, AS 9110C Quality Management Systems - Requirements for Aviation Maintenance Organizations, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Management System Standards, and/or Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) 3, or equivalent quality control program acceptable to the Government. These programs may be tailored to meet or exceed the requirement for orders.

Specific orders may establish additional quality control measures. The Contractor shall be responsible for the performance of quality control activities, ensuring the performance of products, subcontractors, and vendors. Specific quality requirements will be specified within the orders. The Government is responsible for order quality assurance and Performance Plans will be incorporated as specified within the orders. At the Government’s request, the Contractor shall provide their quality program manual, including a matrix tracing the provisions of quality management program (e.g., AS9100) requirements to the Contractor’s documented procedures.”

Draft SOW Paragraph 3.32 With regard to SOW paragraph 1.1 and the Section L subfactor 3, where the Prime Contract is required to show experience in performing or managing subcontractors performing aircraft modifications, recommend the Prime Contractor be required to be ISO 9001, AS9100 and AS9110 certified?

The Government notes but rejects the recommendation. Please note, SOW para 3.32 notes “Quality Control Provisions: The Contractor shall provide and maintain a quality control program consistent with International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG) and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) AS 9100D Quality Management Systems – Requirements for Aviation, Space, and Defense Organizations, AS 9110C Quality Management Systems - Requirements for Aviation Maintenance Organizations, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Management System Standards, and/or Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) 3, or equivalent quality control program acceptable to the Government. ….”

Draft FW Section L | Draft RW Section L Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Experience Paragraph 1

In that this is a Small Business Set-Aside, many capable small business will need to partner in order to provide the government with a best value solution. Recommend the past performance of subcontractors be included as justification of technical expertise for the team.

Within Subfactor three, the Government is requesting experience NOT past performance. The intent of Subfactor three is to have offerors, regardless of composition, provide their technical experience as a contractor who either performed the work or managed subcontractors that performed the work.

66 Draft_FW Section L.docx What will be the page limits for the Fixed Wing Sample Task technical proposal? The page count will be listed within the supplemental draft Sections L&M, and final RFP estimated release in Q2/FY19.

67 Draft_RW_SectionL.docx What will be the page limits for the Rotary Wing Sample Task technical proposal? The page count will be listed within the supplemental draft Sections L&M, and final RFP estimated release in Q2/FY19.

68 MACM IDIQ Will the Government be releasing drafts for the MACM IDIQ-level Section L, Section M and RFP for review prior to Final RFP release? The Government will provide the draft versions of the full sections L&M, clauses, and CLIN structure. The official RFP will be released ~ Q2/FY19.

69 Overall (relating to SOF PR MACM) What will be the page count for each of the technical proposals in response to the Sample Tasks? The page count will be listed within the supplemental draft Sections L&M, and final RFP estimated release in Q2/FY19.

Dated : 30 November, 2018

DATE

RFP #

TITLE last reviewed by AR 17 Dec 2018 0700.

Q&A #

REFERENCE

(SOW PARAGRAPH, CLIN STRUCTURE, GFI etc.) INDUSTRY QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

12/3/2018

FA8509-19-R-0002 (DRAFT)

SOF/PR Multiple Award Contract for Modifications

70 Overall (relating to SOF PR MACM) Will there be a technical proposal required for the overall SOF/PR SOW? The Government does not request an overall technical approach for the Statement of Work (SOW). Offerors shall be compliant with the ID/IQ SOW and will be evaluated based on the requirements of each sample task.

Overall (relating to SOF PR MACM) Can you provide information on Acquisition Strategy regarding number of awards and will that be in each Category (Rotary and Fixed) The acquisition strategy for the Multiple Award Contract for Modifications (MACM) ID/IQ is to utilize a class deviation(2018-O0006). Under this deviation, a qualifying offeror is an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source and submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation. This deviation permits PCOs to evaluate cost or price only at the order level as long as the multiple-awards contract is for the same or similar services and a contract award was made to each and all qualifying offerors. The Government is not evaluating "past performance".

72 Overall (relating to C-130J sample task) TEMPSET Testing - will the contractor be required to provide on-site test support? If so, what will be the location? The Contractor shall make assumptions and list them within their response.

73 Overall (relating to C-130J sample task) To clarify, the KUSS SATCOM is to be provided by the contractor, and not a previously installed asset? The Government will evaluate proposed solution based on the technical acceptance outlined in the technical threshold/objectives table.

Overall (relating to C-130J sample task) What is the Government's intent for allowing the C-130 Mission Crew to interface with the permanently installed equipment?

A) Is the system to function purely as a relay?

B) Who is the primary operator - pilots, flight engineer, additional crew member?

C) Does the information need to be presented to the air crew D) If the information is to be displayed to the air crew, is the intent to display it via a Laptop interface (contractor provided) or Government-provided asset?

The system will act as a relay. The Government will evaluate proposed solution based on the technical acceptance outlined in the technical threshold/objectives table.

75 Overall (relating to C-130J sample task) The requirement is to modify 10 AC-130Js. Are the C-130Js the same MDS, or does the design need to be applicable across the various C-130 SOF variants?

The Sample Task requires modification of a slick SOF C-130J of the same MDS (no specific Mission Design Series (MDS) will be outlined for the Sample Task).

76 Overall (relating to HH-60 sample task) What is the operational intent of the system? Is it merely a relay? The system will act as a relay. The Government will evaluate proposed solution based on the technical acceptance outlined in the technical threshold/objectives table.

Overall (relating to HH-60 sample task) Does the information need to be presented to the air crew i.e. the SMFCD? The Government is not directing how the information should be presented to the aircrew. The Contractor should outline this within their approach.

The Government will evaluate proposed solution based on the technical acceptance outlined in the technical threshold/objectives table.

78 Overall (relating to HH-60 sample task) Who is the primary operator in the aircraft - the pilots, flight engineer, additional crew member? The Contractor should outline the primary operator intended for their solution.

79 Overall (relating to HH-60 sample task) Is this modification supposed to work with PRSA modification or be completely independent? The system is independent of the Personnel Recovery Situational Awareness (PRSA) modification.

80 Overall (relating to HH-60 sample task) SOW does not address GFI/GFE. What GFI/GFE will be provided? There will be no GFI/GFE provided for the sample task, with the exception of ELA for Rotary Sample Task. The orders will specify GFI/GFE as required.

81 Overall (relating to HH-60 sample task) What CONUS and OCONUS locations will installation occur? How many aircraft (of the ten total) at each location? The Contractor will propose an installation schedule based on their provided solution.

82 Sample Task RW Section 2.0 Where will Trial Installation and Kit Proof Installation occur? On-site engineering support. Is on site at contractor's facility or other location. Please specify.

The Contractor will propose an installation schedule based on their provided solution.

83 Sample Task FW 2.0 and RW 2.0 Will this be "on call" ICS or require a full-time FSR? At what location will this ICS be required? The Contractor should make appropriate assumptions concerning the level of support required to support the proposed system.

84 Sample Task sections FW 3.9 and RW 3.10 Should MIL-STD-461F be 461G? Yes, the Government will correct the typographical error within the final product.

85 Sample tasks sections FW 3.17.6 and RW 3.18.5 Should MIL-STD-2073/D be 2073/E and mark per the guidelines in MIL-STD-129P be 129R? Yes, the Government will correct the typographical error within the final product.

86 Sample tasks sections FW 3.18 and RW 3.19 TO reviews shall be conducted at Robins, AFB. Please consider changing to contractor's facility For the Sample Tasks, reviews will be conducted at Robins AFB. Future Task Orders will outline the Government approved location.

87 Sample tasks sections FW 3.20 and RW 3.21 Should MIL-PRF-49506 be SAE-GEIA-STD-0007? Yes, the Government will correct the typographical error within the final product.

Draft SOW Trial Installation (TI) Kit (para. 3.9.6) Will Govt provide specialized support equipment for system testing (i.e. EW, LAIRCM, radar, etc.)? Please reference SOW para. 21. "2.1 Government Property: Government Furnished Material (GFM), Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), and Government Furnished Information (GFI) are authorized. GFM, GFE and GFI will be identified in each specific DO, as needed. During the period of performance, the Government may provide contractor access to Government equipment for the accomplishment of required tasks. Access will be provided on an as-available basis and unless otherwise specified, all equipment will remain at its current location. Equipment may include aircraft and/or components, maintenance test equipment, jigs, fixtures, etc. If equipment is available to be transported to and used at the contractor’s facility, then it must be returned to its original location as soon as it is no longer needed at the contractor’s facility. All equipment, regardless of location, remains the property of the US Government and must be returned to the Government upon completion of the task requiring the equipment or at the completion of the contract unless a follow-on effort is coordinated, whichever comes first."

89 Draft SOW Configuration Management (MIL-STD-973)(para. 3.18) Has MIL-STD-973 has been canceled and superseded by EIA649B? Yes, the Government will correct the typographical error within the final product.

No reference mentioned The requirement as written is very limiting in regards to the pool of available bidders that will possess that specific past performance. Recommend the Government allow bidders with past performance on other similar systems with regards to size, scope and complexity either as a self-performing Prime or directly managing a sub with that capability. This approach will expand the competitive pool and potentially yield additional innovations surrounding cost, schedule and quality benefits to the Government. The current requirement on both the C130 and H60 is for specific past performance as a Prime or a Prime directly managing a sub on Beyond Line of Sight Data Link support for these specific platforms within the previous 10 years. Will the Government re-evaluate the past performance criteria for the C-130 and H-60 as it pertains to BLS datalink support?

The acquisition strategy for the Multiple Award Contract for Modifications (MACM) ID/IQ is to utilize a class deviation(2018-O0006). Under this deviation, a qualifying offeror is an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source and submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation. This deviation permits PCOs to evaluate cost or price only at the order level as long as the multiple-awards contract is for the same or similar services and a contract award was made to each and all qualifying offerors. The Government is not evaluating "past performance".

Section M, Subfactor One Of the sample tasks states that the subfactor is met "when the offeror's proposal provides an adequately detailed narrative and supporting documentation that comprehensively illustrates the offeror’s sound, thorough understanding of, visible approach to, and current and planned capability for the following” and identifies a table with a blank for DESIGN OUTPUT for each of the seven technical elements. Is it the Government’s plan to evaluate the approach as stated or a result of a design output?

The Government intends to evaluate the approach as stated and the design output.

Section L, Subfactor Three For the sample tasks lists that citations be provided “Within your technical expertise as a prime contractor”. This would exclude small businesses that are have executed these factors in similar work scope as subcontractors. Would the Government consider changing the verbiage to ““Within your technical expertise as a prime or subcontractor”?

The Government will amend the text within subfactor three to allow offerors the ability to outline their experience within a broader context.

93 Section L, Subfactor Three Three requires demonstration of past performance for military aircraft modifications that could broadly include all services and foreign defense modifications. Is this the Government’s intent or should this be limited to SOF mission aircraft?

The intent of Subfactor three is to have offerors, regardless of composition, provide their technical experience. The Government will amend the text within subfactor three to allow offerors the ability to outline their experience within a broader context.

94 Section L and M Section L and M for the sample tasks is provided but without the similar draft L &M for the MACM, we do not know the context or weighting. Can the Government provide the schedule for Draft solicitation release including Sections L and M for the MACM?

The Government will provide the draft versions of the full sections L&M, clauses, and CLIN structure. The official RFP will be released ~ Q2/FY19, which will also contain the requested information.

95 No reference mentioned Is the Government planning to release a draft contract and the rest of Sections L and M prior to issuing the final RFP? The Government will provide the draft versions of the full sections L&M, clauses, and CLIN structure. The official RFP will be released ~ Q2/FY19.

Dated : 30 November, 2018

DATE

RFP #

TITLE last reviewed by AR 17 Dec 2018 0700.

Q&A #

REFERENCE

(SOW PARAGRAPH, CLIN STRUCTURE, GFI etc.) INDUSTRY QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

12/3/2018

FA8509-19-R-0002 (DRAFT)

SOF/PR Multiple Award Contract for Modifications

No reference mentioned What is the planned Period of Performance for execution of the contract? Reference SOW para “3.1.1 Contract/Order Period of Performance: The ID/IQ will consist of seven (7) years and include a three (3) year basic period with two (2) option periods consisting of two (2) years each. The PoP will be determined on each order, however no order may exceed seven (7) years.

However, orders may be placed from date of award through 24 months after exercise of the last option.

97 No reference mentioned The Fixed-Wing Sample Task mentions C-130J in the title, however C-130 (no specific MDS) is used throughout the majority of the ST text. It also mentions the MC-130J TACC and Damage Tolerance Assessment. Can you please clarify the intended MDS for this ST?

The sample task references a slick SOF C-130J configuration. Future tasks on this IDIQ will outline the specific MDS.

No reference mentioned The Rotary-Wing ST adds paragraph 2.4-DMSMS and says, “the contractor shall provide support data for forecasting DMSMS at all program reviews”.

Are we to provide data to feed a specific DMSMS database system at each review, or are we to provide our assessment of DMSMS for the items at each review?

The Contractor is to provide data upon delivery of the system to support the Advanced Component Obsolescence Management system (a.k.a. DMSMS database) and provide an assessment of DMSMS of the proffered system during reviews.

No reference mentioned Section L and Section M references many technical elements such as an antenna co-site analysis, structural analysis, and provisioning along with other detail technical aspects of a system design. Most of the details of this type analysis are developed during the NRE program execution. Is the Government expecting these details in the proposal or are you expecting the description of our proposed processes and capabilities for finalizing this type of technical data during NRE?

The Government does not request an overall technical approach for the MACM ID/IQ SOW. Offerors shall be compliant with the MACM ID/IQ SOW and will be evaluated based on the requirements of each order. The Government expects the description of the Contractor's proposed processes and capabilities for developing these aspects as they relate to a proposed Sample Task solution.

No reference mentioned In the past performance area of the Sample tasks, the Government seems to imply our experience performing similar work will only count if the offeror performed or managed work as a prime. If that is the case, it would be overly restrictive and burdensome on most small businesses. Will the Government modify the verbiage to ensure experience of the offeror and team is evaluated and applicable?

Within Subfactor three, the Government is requesting experience NOT past performance. The intent of Subfactor three is to have offerors, regardless of composition, provide their technical experience as a prime contractor who either performed the work or managed subcontractors that performed the work.

101 Statement of Work; Draft Fixed Wing sections L&M; Draft Rotary Wing sections L&M

Will the Government release a complete draft RFP prior to the final RFP release? The Government will provide the draft versions of the full sections L&M, clauses, and CLIN structure. The official RFP will be released ~ Q2/FY19.

102 FBO solicitation notice/milestone schedule Can the government provide an updated milestone schedule? No

103 Fixed Wing and Rotary Wing Sample Tasks para. 2. For purposes of our proposed solution, can we assume all necessary OEM drawings and data from Lockheed (C-130J) and Raytheon (HH-60G SMFCD/ACSU) would be available during an engineering phase?

Assume OEM technical data will not be provided by the USG.

104 Fixed Wing Sample Task para. 1 Due to differences in existing data link system architecture, could the government be more specific about which C-130 variant (AC/MC/HC) will be receiving the modification?

The sample task references a slick SOF C-130J configuration. Future tasks on this IDIQ will outline the specific MDS.

105 Fixed Wing Sample Task para. 1 Can we assume that regardless of variant, the C-130J will have a Lockheed Special Mission Processor (SMP) installed for the integration? The Contractor should identify all assumptions within their proposal.

106 Fixed Wing and Rotary Wing Sample Tasks para. 3. Will the government provide the baseline for the chosen aircraft variant or notional data for all areas of paragraph three or should we use assumptions to describe the process? This question applies to baseline antenna data, crash loads, weight and balance.

The sample task references a slick SOF C-130J configuration. Future tasks on this IDIQ will outline the specific MDS.

107 Fixed wing and rotary wing sample tasks What is the expected VDL transmitter characteristics?