Revised_Q_A_on_Final_RFP_through_22_Apr_19.pdf

As of 4/22/2019

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

Questions and Answers

No. Vendor Question Government Response 1 Section L provides instructions for producing and packaging a compliant proposal response, but does not provide instructions for delivery (i.e., shipping or hand delivery). Item 8 (Address Offer To) of the SF 33 is also blank. Please confirm that offers should be delivered/addressed to the location and point of contact listed in Item 7 (Issued By).

It is the responsibility of the offerors to ensure that the proposals are delivered to the address provided in Block 7 and Section L, Page 1 Paragraph I.A. The Government does not specify to offerors how delivery is to be accomplished. Block 8 was left blank as its information is the same as Block 7.

2 Section L, page 2, paragraph four states that "a cover page should be used to clearly mark the volume number, title, solicitation identification, and the offeror’s name, and will be included in the total page count." Given that each volume is required to have a list of acronyms that will not be counted against the page limitations, that tables of content are also not counted against the page limitations, and that all pages are to be numbered consecutively -- would the government consider making the cover page also exempt from the page limitations? This would allow for consecutive page numbering.

As previously responded to in the pre-RFP release questions, the cover page will be excluded from the page count. Section L will be updated to reflect this change in the forthcoming solicitation amendment.

3 Section L, page 2, paragraph 2 states that "In order to verify the spacing, font, font size and margins utilized, the offeror shall provide an electronic copy of the completed RFP and technical proposals in Word format." Given that the RFP was issued in PDF format and there are no page limitations for Volume I, would the government allow this volume to be submitted as a PDF document?

The referenced statement implies that an electronic copy of the completed RFP and Word formatted technical proposals shall be provided. The completed RFP should remain in PDF format.

4 There are no instructions for completion of the RFP other than to return a completed and signed RFP with all "fill-in" information appropriately completed. Please confirm that the government intends for offeror's to return the completed and signed RFP in its entirety (77 pages) and not excerpts (i.e., SF 33, Reps & Certs, and misc. others).

Yes. A completed RFP indicates the document in its entirety. Respondents who return partial documents will be considered as non-responsive.

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

Solicitation No.: FA8509-19-R-0002

Questions and Answers

No. Vendor Question Government Response 5 Regarding Attachment #2 – MACM IDIQ Pool A Fixed Wing:

1. Reference Paragraph 2.0, paragraph 4, page 2: The referenced CDRL A007 in this paragraph is not included in the Table 1 in Section 5, page 12. Is A007 a requirement of this Sample Task?

2. Reference Paragraphs 3.20.1 through 3.20.18 pages 9 – 11.

Should these paragraphs be numbered 3.20.1 – 3.21.18?

3. Reference Paragraph 3.20.18 page 11. Should this paragraph be numbered 3.22?

4. Reference Paragraph 3.18 page 8. The referenced CDRL A009 in this paragraph is not included in the Table 1 in Section 5, page 12. Is A009 a requirement of this Sample Task?

1. CDRL A007 is not a requirement of this Sample Task and will be removed from Paragraph 2.0 in its entirety.

2. Yes. Typographical error. Will be changed to 3.21.1 through 3.21.18.

3. Paragraph 3.2.18 provides the security requirements for COTS products and will not be changed.

4. CDRL A009 is not a requirement of this Sample Task and will be removed from Paragraph 3.18 in its entirety.

6 Regarding Attachment #4 MACM IDIQ Pool B Rotary Wing:

1. Reference Paragraph 3.19 page 8. The referenced CDRL A009 in this paragraph is not included in the Table 1 in Section 5, page 13. Is A009 a requirement of this Sample Task?

1. CDRL A009 is not a requirement of this Sample Task and will be removed from Paragraph 3.19 in its entirety.

7 Regarding Attachment #5 SOW:

1. Reference Section 1.2 page 6. Should the reference to FAR 52.219- 14 be changed to 52.219-14 Deviation 2019-00003?

2. Reference Sections 5.4 and 5.5 pages 39. These paragraphs reference Appendices D and E but these Appendices were not attached to the SOW. Will these Appendices be provided?

1. Section I of the RFP includes the cited FAR 52.219-14 Deviation 2019-O0003. The specified Deviation is cited in on page 43 of the RFP. In accordance with the Order of Precedence specified at FAR 52.215-8, any inconsistency in this solicitation or contract shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order:

(a) The Schedule (excluding the specifications).

(b) Representations and other instructions.

(c) Contract clauses.

(d) Other documents, exhibits, and attachments.

(e) The specifications.

2. Appendices D and E were not attached to the SOW, and will be provided as Attachment 10 Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) and Attachment 11 Air Force Technical Manual Contract Requirements (TMCR) TM-86-01Q.

8 Teaming Section L.I.A – Can a company submit a proposal as a prime while also being a subcontractor to a prime within a separate proposal? This may result in Subfactor Three, Aircraft Mod Experience including like examples submitted as prime in proposal and subcontractor in another Prime’s submittal.

You question whether a prime contractor offeror can also act as a "subcontractor" and be evaluated as such under Subfactor Three of the solicitation. This question presumes that subcontractors are to be identified and considered under Subfactor Three for proposal evaluation. This is incorrect. The relevant information for Subfactor Three is for experience related to work performed by the offeror or in those companies engaged in a Joint Venture Agreement. The Government is not conducting an evaluation on subcontractor experience. If an offeror is not issued a prime award, then it may perform as a subcontractor for efforts on the orders. We concur that Section L advises that “offerors,” which would include Joint Venture members, shall submit only one (1) proposal for this solicitation.

For Official Use Only

Solicitation No.: FA8509-19-R-0002

Questions and Answers

No. Vendor Question Government Response 9 In the Government’s response above, a statement was included “If an offeror is not issued a prime award, then it may perform as a subcontractor for efforts on the orders.”

a. Should an offeror interpret this as if they receive an award as a Prime in Pool A that they cannot then be a subcontractor to a Prime for a task order within Pool B?

b. Should an offeror interpret this as if they receive an award as a Prime in Pool A that they cannot then be a subcontractor to another Prime in Pool A if the offerors believe that the best value to the USAF to fulfill that particular task order would be such a Prime/Subcontractor relationship?

The intent of this contract is to compete as many orders as feasible. It is expected that each awardee will indepently propose on these orders when solicited.

For example on a competitive order the following methodology stands to mitigate any potential Conflicts of Interest:

-- If an Offeror is awarded a prime award in Pool A, it may not propose as a subcontractor to another prime awardee that is proposing on Pool A requirements.

-- If an Offeror is awarded a prime award in both Pool A and Pool B, it may not propose as a subcontractor to another prime awardee that is proposing on either Pool A or Pool B requirements.

-- If an Offeror is awarded a prime award in Pool B, it may not propose as a subcontractor to another prime awardee that is proposing on Pool B requirements.

In cases where an exception to Fair Opportunity (in accordance with FAR 16.5) may exist on an order, prime awardees may propose on subcontractor opportunities under the same pool under the respective pool(s) for which it may have a prime award.

10 Can USAF confirm that offeror can only submit one proposal (for Pool A, Pool B, or both) and this proposal must not identify any planned subcontractor(s) and, as such, will not have Aircraft Mod Exp (Subfactor 3) included for those subcontractors?

a. If this is the intent on Teaming, this appears to be a significant change in the Gov’t direction on teaming arrangements since the 2/28/19 Q&A. This significant change could adversely impact multiple bidders this late in the solicitation process.

The first sentence for Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Experience will be revised for Pool A and Pool B for Section L and Section M as follows:

"This Subfactor is met when the proposal includes a detailed narrative, along with supporting documentation that illustrates the offeror’s understanding of the following:"

11 Page Limits: Section L.II.A.4 - Are the following excluded from the 40-page limits for each pool:

a. BOE and BOM sortable electronic spreadsheet (stated in previous Q&A on draft documentation, but wanted to confirm application to final

RFP)

b. Supporting documentation required under all subfactors. For instance, Test Reports as part of subfactor 3 (L.Subfactor3.Para2.LetterB) or supporting documentation as part of subfactor 2, Airworthiness (opening paragraph)

a. Yes, the electronic sortable spreadsheet is excluded from the page count limitations.

b. No, the supporting documentation required under all three subfactors is not excluded from the page count limitations.

12 Ground/Flight Risk Clauses: As Sample Task Orders require Aircraft Ground and Flight operations, will ground/flight risk clauses be required and issued for this effort?

The Sample Tasks are for evaluation purposes of the basic award only, and will not be awarded, therefore the ground/flight risk operations clauses may be applicable to future orders. The Ground and Flight Risk clause will be included in the basic RFP document and will be identified in the order RFP as applicable.

For Official Use Only

Solicitation No.: FA8509-19-R-0002

Questions and Answers

No. Vendor Question Government Response 13 SOW paragraphs/subparagraphs:

a. Section L. Subfactor One first line states that for each subfactor “Offeror must address all paragraphs/subparagraphs).” Please confirm that offeror must only address the MACM IDIQ SOW and Sample Task paragraphs that are specifically called out in Section L.

b. Section L and M. Subfactor Three paragraph 1 states “that illustrate expertise, capabilities, and capacities relative to any requirements/engineering services specified in the SOW” and then provides specific SOW paragraph references and sample task paragraph references. Should subfactor three response limit experience to those specific SOF MACM SOW paragraphs along with related Sample Task paragraphs?

a. Confirmed.

b. The offerors response to subfactor three should be limited to those specific SOF MACM SOW paragraphs along with related Sample Task paragraphs identified in Sections L&M.

14 Suggested reference corrections: Section L references the FW Sample Task SOW as Attachment 4; however, Attachment 4 is the RW Sample Task SOW. It likewise references the RW Sample Task SOW as Attachment 2; however, Attachment 2 is the FW Sample Task SOW. Suggest correcting these references.

This administrative error will be corrected in the forthcoming solicitation Amendment.

15 How would the USAF like an offeror to identify in the sample task proposal that they would use a subcontractor (specializing in C-130 CFTs) for the C-130 modification kit installations?

Offerors shall capture their individual technical approach to the Sample Task(s) as related to the required subfactor elements.

16 Attachment 7 - Section L, II.A.3 requires offerors to provide a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms for each volume; however, Volume I is the Completed RFP. Will the Government require a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms for only Volume II, Written Technical Proposal?

A glossary of abbreviations and acronyms are to be provided for each Volume, including Volume I, Completed RFP (if applicable), and Volume II Written Technical Proposal.

17 Item No. 1 of Table 1 lists the Link Budget as having a Min Threshold value of "0" and an Objective value of "2" with no associated units.

Pool B Table 1 (on page 5) lists the Link Budget as having a Min Threshold value of "6dB margin" and an objective value of "10 dB margin". Do you intend for the two Pools to have different threshold values (and units of measure) for Link Budget?

Yes. It is the Government's intention to have different threshold values for the two Pools and units of measure, in reference to the Link Budget.

For Official Use Only

Solicitation No.: FA8509-19-R-0002

Questions and Answers

No. Vendor Question Government Response 18 CBOM and Basis of Estimate - Attachment 9 cost Proposal Structure calls for a , Basis of Estimate, CBOM and WBS but does not provide eval criteria for these in section M. Will these be evaluated for award?

If so, what criteria will be used to evaluate?

The information contained in Attachment 9 - L‐XXX Cost Proposal Adequacy and Structure Checklist IAW AFFARS MP 5315.4‐1(d) is not required for proposal submission and will not be evaluated at the basic contract level as part of this source selection. Please refer to to Note 7 on Page 2 of the basic RFP as well as the note at the top of Page 1 in Attachment 9.

19 The sample task indicates the ISR asset will "…provide real-time streaming line-of sight video link to the SOF Team via a C-130J modified for this purpose." We interpret this to mean there is LOS between the ISR asset and the C-130J. However, the next sentence in the sample task says the ISR asset will "…transmit full motion video (FMV) in the L, S, or C band." These bands are traditionally associated with satellite communications. Can the USG confirm that the scenario described in the sample task has LOS between the ISR asset and the C-130J?

An offeror shall identify any assumptions to its individual technical approach to the Sample Task(s) as related to the required subfactor elements.

20 The sample task indicates the ISR asset will "…provide real-time streaming line-of sight video link to the SOF Team via an HH-60G modified for this purpose." We interpret this to mean there is LOS between the ISR asset and the HH-60G. However, the next sentence in the sample task says the ISR asset will "…transmit full motion video (FMV) in the L, S, or C band." These bands are traditionally associated with satellite communications. Can the USG confirm that the scenario described in the sample task has LOS between the ISR asset and the HH-60G?

An offeror shall identify any assumptions to its individual technical approach to the Sample Task(s) as related to the required subfactor elements.

21 L-900.II.A(2) The Government requires the use of Times New Roman 12 point font throughout the proposal with the exception of drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, which can be presented in Arial 10 point font.

1) Do these requirements exclude existing diagrams or specifications, for instance, produced prior to this solicitation?

2) Will the Government please confirm that tables are considered supporting illustrations and therefore exempted from the Times New Roman 12 point requirement?

1. No. Unless otherwise specified as an exception in Section L, the font requirement is Times New Roman 12 point font throughout.

2. Tables are considered a supporting illustration and may be submitted in an Arial 10 point font.

22 L-900.II.A(2) Section L states that “Each volume within the proposal notebook shall be separately tabbed and identified." Will the Government clarify if the term proposal notebook is used in error or if the Government intends for both volumes to be submitted in the same binder/notebook?

This sentence in Section L has been updated to read "Each volume within the proposal binder(s) shall be separately tabbed and identified."

For Official Use Only

Solicitation No.: FA8509-19-R-0002

Questions and Answers

No. Vendor Question Government Response 23 L-900.II.C(2) Item 2, Format and Specific Content states, "For each

Subfactor, the offeror shall identify any risks associated with the proposed approach to the sample task and actions to be taken to mitigate that risk." Will the Government please clarify if risks are to be identified only for Subfactors 1 and 2?

This paragraph of Section L will be revised to specify: For Subfactor One Technical Approach/Solution and Subfactor Two Airworthiness, the offeror shall identify within their detailed narrative risks or absence of risk associated with the proposed approach.

24 L-900.II.A(4) and Draft_RFP_Industry_Questions_Rev_1_28_Feb_2019 Section L states, The page limitations include any cover page, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc., but excludes any table of contents or list of acronyms (if utilized)." The Government indicated in Q&As released on 28 February that it would update the RFP language to exclude the cover page from the Volume II page count. Will the Government clarify if the cover page is excluded from page count?

The cover page will be excluded from the page count. Section L will be updated to reflect this change in the forthcoming solicitation amendment.

25 FA850919R0002 and DFARS 252.228-7001, Ground and Flight Risk Given that offeror's will be required to modify military aircraft and conduct or support ground and flight testing under this effort, reference Statement of Work sections 3.9.6, 3.9.7, and 3.9.9, will the Government add DFARS 252.228-7001, Ground and Flight Risk to the base contract?

The Ground and Flight Risk clause will be included in the basic RFP document and will be identified in the order RFP as applicable.

26 Per Question 11 of the Questions and Answers released 2/28/2019, the cover page "is not required and does count towards the page limit.

This language will be updated on the Final RFP. " However, Section L.II.A.4 of the Final RFP states, "The page limitations include any cover page, charts, graphs, drawings, ... A cover page should be used to clearly mark the volume number, title, solicitation identification, and the offeror’s name, and will be included in the total page count. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder."

Since the Government is requiring hard copy submissions, cover pages are needed to provide identifying data on the Offeror and volume. Will the Government please update the Final RFP to exclude cover pages from the page count?

As previously responded to in the pre-RFP release questions, the cover page will be excluded from the page count. Section L will be updated to reflect this change in the forthcoming solicitation amendment.

For Official Use Only

Solicitation No.: FA8509-19-R-0002

Questions and Answers

No. Vendor Question Government Response 27 Reference: Attachment _5 SOW SOF-PR MACM, Paragraph 3.9

Engineering refers to SOW Appendix D which is the SOF/PR and Rotary Systems Engineering Plan (SEP), and Appendix E: SOF/PR and Rotary Technical Manual Contract Requirements (TMCR). Neither have been provided at SOW paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 respectively.

Question: Will the Government be providing these documents?

Appendices D and E were not attached to the SOW, and will be provided as Attachment 10 Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) and Attachment 11 Air Force Technical Manual Contract Requirements (TMCR) TM-86-01Q.

28 Some of the of the RFP fill in sections would be handled post-award but there is one in particular that I am not certain on how to complete.

I have included a copy of this section below. Is this to be handled post award or is this a section that we are required to complete for our Volume I response?

ACTIVITY ADDRESS CODE/ROUTING IDENTIFIER CODE (RIC)

(MAR 2010)

For Government Use Only: The payment office should reference the Payment Instructions Table at DFARS PGI 204.7108(b)(2) via the following link:

https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/pgi/pgi_htm/current/PGI204_7 1 htm#payment instructions

The two fill in sections (Activity Address Code/Routing Identifier Code (RIC) and the Payment instructions) will be addressed post award on each individual order, as applicable.

29 The previously released Q&As stated that the full RFP in its entirety shall be included as part of the Volume I submission, not just the fill in pages. Does the full RFP also include all 11 attachments or just the RFP document (77 pages) without the attachments?

The phrase "RFP in its entirety" refers to the 77 page RFP document as not all of the attachments are required for the basic award.

30 Attachment 4 - Fixed Wing Sample Task Paragraph 3.9; they have indicated MIL-TD-461 for “lab-level tests of applicable modification electrical subsystems and equipment.” We cannot find MIL-TD-461 in Assist. Do they mean MIL-STD-461G, “Requirements for the Control of Electromagnetic Interference Characteristics of Subsystems and Equipment”?

This is should be MIL-STD-461G. Attachment 4, Pool A Fixed Wing Sample Task will be updated via RFP Amendment to correct this error.

For Official Use Only

Solicitation No.: FA8509-19-R-0002

Questions and Answers

No. Vendor Question Government Response 31 Attachment 4 - Fixed Wing Sample Task

In paragraph 2.0, it is stated “The Contractor shall perform the actual installation of the modification kit (A and B) on ten (10) C-130J aircraft”, whereas in paragraph 3.17.4, it is stated “The Contractor shall deliver and install production kits on the remaining eight (8) aircraft”. This is following the initial install of one KIT PROOF Trial Install system. How many systems are required?

The Government retracts its previous response to this question. The Fixed Wing Sample Task language in paras 3.17.1, 3.17.2, and 3.17.3 clearly states that there will be two kit installations prior to the production kits - 1 Trial Kit and 1 Kit Proof. If the Trial Kit and Kit Proof kits are delivered and installed, there is a balance of eight (8) kits remaining for production - which matches the language in Sample Task par 3.17.4, and also in Sample Task par 2.0.

32 Attachment 4 - Fixed Wing Sample Task In paragraph 4.2, it states that we “shall support all Developmental Test activities… “, which are Government tests. It then says “ The ATP and Test Report shall be submitted…”. Does this mean the ATP Test Report, which we can understand, or does it mean the DT Report, which should be a Government document?

An offeror shall identify any assumptions to its individual technical approach to the Sample Task(s) as related to the required subfactor elements.

For Official Use Only