Pre-Proposal_Conference__Minutes.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE SUSTAINMENT CENTER (AFMC) OPERATING LOCATION

ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE GEORGIA

17 July 2019

TO: INTERESTED PARTIES FOR SOLICITATION (FA8530-19-R-0001)

FROM: AFSC/PZIE

SUBJECT: Pre-Proposal Conference Minutes for Solicitation (FA8530-19-R-0001)

1. IAW AFFARS5315.209 identified in solicitation FA8530-19-R-0001, Warner Robins AFSC/PZIE conducted a pre-proposal conference on 12 July 2019. The purpose of the conference was to address concerns and field questions from potential offerors on the subject matter solicitation that was released on FEDBIZ-OPS on 22 June 2019.

2. The meeting was conducted via tele-conference and began at 10 AM (EST) with the following Government members present:

Wendell Crittenden, AFSC/PZIE (Contracting Officer) Alyssa Pruitt, AFLCMC/LZPTP (TDSSe Program Manager) Todd Heaton, AFLCMC/LZPTP (LZPTP Chief) Russell Kessinger, AFLCMC/LZPTP (TDSSe Program Manager) Angela Harris, AFSC/SB (Small Business Director) Kelly Bryan, AFSC/PZCFB (Price Analyst) Emily Walker, AFSC/PZIE (Contract Specialist) LaToya Lanier, AFSC/PZIE (Program Manager)

NOTE: All offerors were instructed on how to be included on the teleconference (if desired) in the solicitation. The Government compiled a list of confirmed potential offerors and utilized the list for attendance purposes as the callers entered the conference. The list of potential offerors on the conference will be included in the official contract file however due to FOIA will not be include these minutes.

3. After confirming all reserved callers were present, the meeting began with the contracting officer (CO) Wendell Crittenden introducing the Government team and reviewing the charts that were made available to all confirmed callers on 11 July 2019. After review of the charts, the CO began reviewing the received questions posed by potential offerors and periodically paused for further clarifications/questions.

4. The meeting concluded at approximately 11:20 AM (EST). The following pages are a consolidated list of questions and the Government’s response/answers provided either during the conference or after further Government only clarifications.

WENDELL D. CRITTENDEN

Chief, Enterprise Acquisition Branch

AFSC/PZIE-R

Questions/Answers for TDSSe2 RFP (FA8530-19-R-0001) 12 July 2019

1. Reference Section L. I. A, last sentence of first paragraph states submission date is per Block

8 on the face pages of RFP.

Question: This seems to be a typographical error and it should state Block 9. Is it a typographical error, if not please clarify?

o Answer: Government will update to Block 9.

2. Reference PWS 4.11.3: This section calls for a monthly reporting of labor details on the contract, which seems to indicate a staffing level requirement for government directed positions. In the current TDSSe contract it is our understanding that the Task Orders were based upon performance in completing defined workload to the Task Order requirements and the Government did not order numbers of bodies.

Question: Can the Government define how the workload will include a set number of bodies of a specific category or will this contract be based upon identified workload performance or both?

o Answer: The Government does not intend to specify staffing level requirement. Contractor will be responsible for identifying task order PWS labor requirements.

3. Reference PWS 4.3.4- TCM Support: There is always some question from customers under the TDSSe contractor as to the extent of the TCM role vs. Equipment Specialist (ES) support.

This comes from references in the TO 00-5 series manuals with comments on role where it references TCM/ES and in the PWS where it states about technical content.

Question: So a proper bid rate can be established can the government please clarify that the TCM is not the ES and where the responsibility ends?

o Answer: “TCM Support” can provides support for a wide range of technical data processes but cannot provide technical decisions on behalf of the Government. The TCM must defer technical/engineering decisions to the weapon system/commodity engineer or Equipment Specialist.

The Equipment Specialist is typically a government employee and has the authority to make decisions for the government.

The TDSSe job labor category description specifies the requirements of a TCM Support.

4. Reference solicitation Item No. 0005 and 1005: These two items are listed as a unit of measure of LO (Lot). The Other Direct Cost – FFP for years are listed as unit of measure of EA (each).

Question: Can the government please clarify if this is correct or if they should all be LO or EA?

o Answer: Government will change Item No. 0005 and 1005 to EA (Each).

5. Reference solicitation clause 252.217-7001 page 42 of 89: There is a percentage space not filled in.

Question: Is this percentage supposed to apply to all TDSSe2 task orders, which would seem to require it be filled in or will this percentage be filled in for each task order contract?

o Answer: Surges will be determined/applied at the task order level.

However contract writing system will not allow editing.

6. Reference solicitation attachment 2 (Labor Rate Matrix), there are On-site Estimated Annual Hours listed.

Question: Can you please provide background clarification as to how these “Estimated Hours” were calculated? Are they based on historical data? Or what are the determining factors of these estimates? If historical hours were used, is this the government’s preference for going forward- or are they willing to allow more work to be completed off site- as determined by the chosen selectee?

o Answer: Estimated hours are based on projected usage for on-base and off-base work. On-base and off-base requirements will be determined at the task order level. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is calculated using 90% of work taking place on-base and 10% of work taking place off-base. These percentages for TEP calculation will not change based off proposals.

7. Question: Will awardee or awarded team be provided and have access to all necessary and associated schemas, FOSI’s, and DTD’s? If they do not exist, is it assumed that they will be created by the awardee or companies involved?

o Answer: The Contractor is expected to use AF TMSS approved schemas, FOSI’s and DTDs for TO sustainment. All approved AF TMSS schemas, FOSI’s and DTDs will be stored and maintained in the AFMC Government approved systems [such as, Technical Order and Authoring Publishing (TOAP)]. Additionally, TO Editorial sustainment activities are primarily expected to be performed within the TOAP system to include authoring, illustration support and publishing. Prospective users are required to submit a DD Form 2875 for access to government systems.

8. Question: Is the awardee or awarded team responsible for schema, FOSI’s and DTD changes and maintenance?

o Answer: No, all AF TMSS approved schemas, FOSI’s, and DTDs will be managed by the Government and are currently stored/maintained in Government systems by Government Administrators.

9. Question: What specific S1000D issue versions are preferred?

o Answer: The Contractor shall be familiar with past and current versions of S1000D, and be prepared to provide sustainment support to multiple TDSSe customers at varied S1000D version levels.

10. Question: Can the Government please clarify when final questions are due?

o Answer: Government will take questions until COB 12 July 19.

Questions after 12 July 19 can be submitted but may not be answered.

All answered questions will be posted via FBO.

11. Reference Section L, Volume Organization, A. General. The RFP states “In order to verify the font size and margins utilized, the offeror shall provide an electronic copy of the technical proposal in Word format” as well as “Submission of the initial proposal packages via electronic mail will not be accepted.”

Question: Can the Government please provide formal instructions for delivery of the electronic files?

o Answer: Electronic Files shall be sent along with the hard copy of the proposal to:

AFSC/PZIE

ATTN: Wendell Crittenden 480 Richard Ray Blvd Suite 202 Robins AFB, GA 31098 o The PCO will send an email confirmation when proposal is received.

12. Reference Section L, Volume Organization, A. General.

o Question: Will the Government please confirm that executive summaries are excluded from page count, and that tables, charts, graphs can be single spaced?

o Answer: Executive summaries, in volume-2, will be included in the volume-2 page count of 70 pages.

13. Reference Wage Determinations.

o Question: Will the Government please provide Wage Determinations for Kirtland, NM and Hanscom, MA?

o Answer: No. Kirtland and Hanscom are potential locations. Labor rates will only be submitted for known locations. Hill AFB, Tinker AFB, Robins AFB, and Peterson AFB are known locations.

14. Reference 0001, Section L, B. Volume I, Completed RFP, 1. General and Attachment 6 –

PWS, Section 5.9.2. “Offerors shall establish and maintain a Safety and Health Plan for the basic contract in accordance with applicable Government regulations and PWS paragraph

5.9.2. The Safety and Health Plan shall be submitted as an attachment as part of the completed RFP package in Vol I, which requires one paper and one digital copy for delivery. The Safety and Health Plan will not be evaluated as part of the proposal. Offerors shall also establish a Quality Control Plan for the basic contract in accordance with PWS paragraph

5.12. The Quality Control Plan shall be submitted as an attachment as part of the completed RFP package in Vol I, which requires one paper and one digital copy for delivery” “5.9.2 Safety and Health Plan/Program: If performing tasks on a Government installation, a Safety and Health Plan is required. The Contractor shall establish and maintain a safety program in accordance with the contract/order, applicable Government regulations and the Safety and Health Plan. The plan shall be submitted as part of the contract proposal. Once approved, the Contractor shall update the Safety and Health Plan to the MFT or as indicated by CDRL instructions when required. CDRL A001, PESHE Plan DI-ENVR-81840 (CDRL requirement to be determined at Order level).

o Question: Can the Government please update PWS 5.9.2, and Sections L and M to reflect the basic requirements of the S&HP and the Quality Control Plan?

o Answer: The requirement for a Safety and Health Plan (S&HP), at the basic contract level, will be removed from this solicitation. A S&HP is no longer required to be submitted as an attachment in Volume I of the proposal. The Safety and Health Plan CDRL will remain, if this requirement generates at the task order level.

15. Reference Section L, D. Volume III, Price: Price Attachment 2 Labor Rate Matrix

Attachment 6 – PWS, Section 4.1.2. Attachment 2 Labor Rate Matrix asks for both a FFP/CPFF rate for each year of contract performance exclusive of profit, yet, there is only one column provided for each year for both FFP and CPFF combined.

o Question: Can the Government please clarify how or where the contractor should account for Profit/Fee for their proposed rates for both FFP and CPFF in its proposal?

o Answer: The rates for FFP/CPFF will be proposed as one rate down to the cost line. The profit/fee for FFP/CPFF will be negotiated at the task order level.

16. Reference Section L, D. Volume III, Price: Price Attachment 2 Labor Rate Matrix Attachment 6 – PWS, Section 4.1.2. Additionally, the RFP and Rate Matrix only list the following as known locations: “Robins AFB, Tinker AFB, Hill AFB, and Peterson AFB”, while the PWS lists the following as known locations: “Hanscom AFB, MA; Hill AFB, UT;

Kirtland AFB, NM; Peterson AFB, CO; Robins AFB, GA; Tinker AFB, OK”.

o Question: Can the Government please clarify whether or not Hanscom AFB and Kirtland AFB are known locations of performance? And if so, can the RFP and Rate Matrix be modified to reflect these locations?

o Answer: Hanscom and Kirtland are potential locations, but not known locations. If a requirement generates then those rates will be negotiated post award.

17. Reference RFP Attachment 6 – PWS, Section 6.0 Appendices. Section 6.0 lists many applicable publications, standards, and directives that are necessary to develop a comprehensive technical response, and also states “In the event that forms or publications are not available, the Government shall assist in providing access to Air Force Instructions, Military Specifications, Preferences, Details, Technical Orders and regulations that apply to this effort.”

o Question: Can the Government please provide these publications, standards, and directives?

o Answer: The latest publications, standards and directives listed are available on the Air Force publishing website (Publications at ‐ E‐Publishing, https://www.e‐publishing.af.mil/, DOD instructions at ‐https://www.esd.whs.mil, and MIL‐PRF/MIL‐DTL can be found in – https://www.everyspec.com). These are available to the public for access and download.

18. Question: For delivery and sustainment- do you have uploading capabilities and is there a particular platform or system that will be utilized? If specific platform, will external access be available or only on-site access?

o Assumption: Assuming “delivery and sustainment” is associated with technical orders, multiple Air Force systems are utilized.

o Answer: Yes o TOAP is the designated system for TO sustainment update and management o ETIMS is the designated system for WA-1 and WA-2 digital TO configuration management and distribution o TODPS will be used to develop and submit actions required to initiate TO print requests as well as the publication and distribution of other media types such as classified/unclassified CD/DVDs.

o Users must be on a .mil network to access these systems o Additional Question based on above: Does TOAP work have to be completed on base?

o Answer: Currently, yes.

19. Question: Are there currently any plans in work to implement or in consideration to modify or change existing IETM distribution tools? If yes, can you please provide additional information?

o Assumption: Assuming “IETM distribution tools” is referring to

ETIMS.

o Answer: Yes, ETIMS currently has a large file distribution capability and there are plans in work to improve ETIMS functionality.

20. Question: Based on the PWS Section 4.4 Technical Data Systems listing - is one of these currently the primary pathway for distribution and if so which one? Based on the various data systems, will the awardee or companies involved be required to take over redundancies of deployment and storage or will those system continue to be maintained?

o Answer: System Maintenance is out of scope for this contract.

System utilization will be determined at the task order level.

21. Reference Page 5, paragraph 3 states “The Contractor shall establish and maintain an acceptable accounting system. Award will not be made to an offeror without and acceptable accounting system.”

o Question: Please define acceptable accounting system. If you submit as an unpopulated JV can either partner have an acceptable accounting system?

o Answer: An acceptable accounting system is defined in DFARS 252.242-7006(a) (1). The 18 criteria used to measure an accounting system’s acceptability are detailed in paragraph (c).

The company in the JV which will be accumulating, assigning, and billing the costs will be the one required to have an acceptable accounting system, although both parties in a JV may have an acceptable accounting system.

22. Reference Page 29, paragraph 5.3.2 is titled Accounting System and has no accompanying narrative.

o Question: Please clarify or add narrative for paragraph.

o Answer: 5.3.2 Accounting System should not have been a part of the PWS. It was included in error. TDSSe does not have any requirements above and beyond DCAA. DCAA must approve the accounting system.

23. Reference Page 8, Section M states “Pictured below is an example of the RFP Attachment

2” o Question: No Picture or example was provide. Please provide example referenced in the paragraph.

o Answer: Picture wasn’t copied into RFP. Will update solicitation to include example. (Ref. Amendment 0001)

24. Reference Page 81, paragraph 2 states “The following information shall be provided in the written technical proposal and will be evaluated to assess the proposed technical approach and associated technical risk in accordance with Section M-900, Evaluation Basis for Award.”

o Question: There is no Section M-900 please clarify?

o Answer: “Section M- Evaluation Factors for Award” (starting on

pg. 84) is Section M-900. This will be updated. (Ref. Amendment 0001)

25. Reference Page 79 Paragraph numbered 2 states that font size shall be 12 and the pages will be doubled spaced. The double spacing in conjunction with the 70 page requirement for volume II limits the offerors ability to provide detail process flows and accomplishing narrative without exceeding the 70 page limit. The double-spacing requirement simply stated reduces pages to approximately 30 to 35 pages of narrative which is less than 7 pages, per required section in volume II (management, Scenario 1-3 and awardable task).

o Question: Request that you increase the page limit to 120 double spaced pages.

o Answer: Government believes 70 pages double spaced is sufficient.

o Additional Question on above: Asked to revisit the 70 page requirement—would like to increase the page limit.

o Answer: The Government reached out again to our technical evaluators and they believe 70 pages to be sufficient.

o NOTE: This is a technical evaluation. The Government only expects to see how the Offerors plan to technically meet the requirements in the L&M. Information on how Offerors have previously met similar requirements (i.e. past performance) is not being evaluated.

26. Reference page 78 II. Volume Organization A. General States: “Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in three (3) separate volumes as set forth below. The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified below. The attachments identified in the table shall be separately tabbed and identified in a three-ring, loose-leaf binders, as necessary.”

o Question: Would the Government consider using a secure electric form of delivery such as https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/guide.aspx? This would allow both the Government Contracting Office and the Proposing Company a secure/modern system that verifies and captures time of submittal and Government receipt of the Proposal.

o Answer: Program has not been given authority to use AMRDEC for proposal delivery.

27. Section L.I.A states "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."

Question: Please confirm that a copy of this agreement should be placed in Volume I - Completed RFP.

o Answer: Yes, a copy should be provided. It does not have to be approved until award.

28. Solicitation page 5 states “NOTE for Request for proposal: Do not fill in Contract Line Item

Unit Prices or Totals,” and then on page 80 it 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.”

Question: Please clarify which instruction is correct.

o Answer: Appropriately completed, for the basic contract, is to not fill in Contract Line Item Unit Prices or Totals. The language “including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP” is for task orders and thus has been removed from solicitation. (Ref. Amendment 0001)

29. Solicitation page 81, Subfactor One (Management Plan), paragraph 14, states that

“Procedures for managing various levels of classification up to and including Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) and Cosmic Top Secret (CTS) including obtaining personnel with the appropriate security clearances.”

Question: If the contractor is required to manage and hold clearances up to TS/SCI, should the DD254 be updated to reflect Top Secret FCL?

o Answer: The contractor is not required to hold clearances up to TS/SCI; they are only required to have capability to obtain said clearances if the TS/SCI requirement generates. If the TS/SCI requirement generates, then there will be a task order specific TS/SCI DD254 will be generated. The basic contract DD254 does not need to be Top Secret FCL.

30. Solicitation page 83 states “All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Price volume.”

Question: Can you please verify specifically what data relating to proposed price should be submitted.

o Answer: Completing the labor rate matrix and an approved accounting system is all that is required for the basic contract award. The supporting documentation that may be required is related to task orders. They may have to provide payroll data, material quotes, historical actuals, etc. but that is for the Price Volumes on the proposals for future task orders.

31. Section L, II. Volume Organization, A Question: Can the government please clarify what they are looking for in regards to the time and date specified for the receipt for the sealed package for our proposal? When hand delivering, are we supposed to have whomever is accepting the proposal time and date stamp it?

o Answer: Yes, the PCO, Wendell Crittenden, or alternate, Emily Walker, will be available and will sign/date hand delivered proposals. Please coordinate ahead of time.

32. In the requirements for Volume I, Completed RFP - the government states that they are wanting the Quality Control Plan and the Safety and Health Plan as attachments Question: Would it be considered compliant if we provide these two plans in an appendix for Volume I o Answer: The requirement for a Safety and Health Plan (S&HP), at the basic contract level, will be removed from this solicitation. A S&HP is no longer required to be submitted as an attachment in Volume I of the proposal. The Safety and Health Plan CDRL will remain, to support this requirement at the task order level.

33. II. Volume organization, A. General, 7 - The government states "With the exception of the cover page in Volume I, each page shall not contain company-specific logos, letterheads, company names"

Question: Can the government please clarify if contractors will be allowed to mention our names and our teaming partners name within our proposal?

o Answer: Names and companies will be redacted for source selection evaluation purposes. Limited usage is recommended for clarity. This includes headers/footers.

34. RFP Page 82 of 89 Section L. D. Volume III, Price (2) Attachment 2 Labor Rate Matrix.

Section D Volume III, Price (2) states all proposed labor rates shall be rounded to two decimal places. Non-Labor Add-on Factors states factors will be stated 1.0000 and not percentages.

Question: Please clarify if Non-Labor Add-on Factors should be rounded to two decimals places or four decimal places as shown on Attachment 2 Lines 51 – 56.

o Answer: Round to four decimal places as shown on Attachment 2.

35. Attachment 2 Labor Rate Matrix. Add-On Factors are to be shown as 1.000 not percentages.

Question: Please clarify that this cost is per $1.00/cost – for example 25% G&A

= $0.25/$1.00 cost o Answer: Yes that is correct. For every $1 of G&A cost, there would be $0.25 of additional G&A add-on costs with a G&A rate of 25%.

36. Attachment 2 Labor Rate Matrix and RFP Page 83 of 89 Labor Add-on Factors: Overtime.

RFP says to include the cost to cover overtime work. Overtime is usually at one and a half times the individual wage rate therefore the cost of overtime will vary depending on which labor category is working the overtime.

Question: Please clarify how the overtime cost factor should be presented o Answer: Attachment 2 Labor Rate Matrix, Overtime Add-on Factor a factor to cover the cost of overtime work. For example, if your overtime rate is one and a half times the individual wage rate, then the overtime factor would be 1.5000. This 1.5000 factor could be applied to any labor category’s regular wage rate to calculate the overtime rate. (i.e. if the regular wage rate is $10 an hour the overtime rate would be $10 times 1.5000, making the overtime rate $15).

37. PWS Page 23 of 41 Section 4.15 Labor Category Descriptions and Qualifications. PWS Section 4.15 references Attachment 3 Labor Categories as the minimum requirements for the listed labor categories. Attachment 3 shows Wage Rates per labor category

Question: Please clarify that these wage rates are information purposes only.

o Answer: The Government equivalent rate may be used during price evaluation.

38. RFP Attachment 11 WD (Robins). WD # 2015-4495 Revision No 8 dated 12/26/18 was attached to the RFP. There has been an update in WD for this location. WD # 2015-4495 Revision 9 dated 06/03/19 is available.

Question: Please clarify if the current WD will be added to the contract.

o Answer: Yes, the Government will use the most current Wage

Determination at the time of proposal -- Robins WD # 2015-4495 Revision 9 dated 06/03/19 will be used. WD in affect at the scheduled bid submission date is what should be used for proposals.

39. Section L II Volume Organization – page 78, 79. The attachments identified in the table shall be separately tabbed and identified in a three-ring, loose-leaf binders, Each volume within the proposal notebook shall be separately tabbed and identified.

Question: Please clarify binding requirements. Does the government want one 3-ring binder with all 3 volumes included or volumes in individual binders?

o Answer: A single binder with separate tabs that clearly shows the volumes is sufficient. Offeror may submit separate binders if that is preferable.

40. Section M A – Source Selection Methodology, pg. 84. Government does not require a past performance or a reference to past performance in process descriptions.

Does the government intend to review contractors CPARS as part of the source selection process?

o Answer: No, past performance will not be a discriminator during source selection. However, prior to award the Government has the right to review past performance for determination of contractor responsibility.

41. PWS 5.12 QMS, pg. 32. PWS paragraph references ISO9001-2008.

Question: Should this be ISO9001-2015?

o Answer: Yes, this will be updated in the PWS.

42. Question: Will the government provide a conformed RFP incorporating answers to questions?

o Answer: Government will post necessary changes to the RFP. (Ref:

Amendment 0001)

43. REF – Section L.II.A Question: On the CD, should there be separate files for each Subfactor Section of the Volume II Technical Proposal or one file for the entire Technical Proposal?

o Answer: Each sub-factor should have its own file.

44. REF – Section L.II.B.1 Question: Is a Quality Control Plan required to be submitted if the offeror has an

ISO 9001-2015 certification?

o Answer: Yes, a certificate will qualify as the Quality Control plan.

45. REF – Section L.II.B.2 Question: Is the RFP Attachment 1 – Cross Reference Matrix a fill in the blank template where only the column labeled ‘Proposal (Offeror Completes)’ is populated?

o Answer: Yes, fill in the last column per the instructions in the cross reference matrix.

46. REF - RFP Attachment 2 – Labor Rate Matrix Question: Should the Company Name and Address be entered in Cells B5-B? It is not highlighted in Green.

o Answer: Yes, please fill in company name and address.

48. REF- Section L.IIB.1

Accounting System Administration- Should documentation validating approval of our accounting system containing our company name be submitted in Volume I?

o Answer: Yes, it should be submitted in Vol. I and should contain your company name.

49. Question: Is the awardable task going to be the first order under the basic contract?

o Answer: No, it is a sample task. It is similar to the types of requirements that will generate, but it is not the first task order.

50. Question: How do you propose to validate a company’s and/or General Managers ability to execute multiple task orders with no past performance? This is a very important aspect of executing a large single award IDIQ?

o Answer: Past performance will not be evaluated as part of this source selection.

51. Question: Are CBAs negotiated separately from the standard pricing we’re submitting?

o Answer: CBA’s are negotiated between the offeror and their union.

We, the government, do not negotiate CBA’s. If an offeror has a CBA agreement with a union, those would be the rates that they would need to submit as those are the rates they would be required to pay.

o Offerors are advised to be familiar with and understand section 4(c) of the Service Contract Act, the National Labor Relations Act as amended, FAR 52.222-41, and FAR 52.222-43.

52. Question: In Section 5.2.5 of the PWS it states that the contract must have a facility clearance to the level indicated in the DD-254. The DD-254 states that a Secret Facility Clearance is the requirement. However, further down in section 5.2.5 it states that task orders issued under this contract will be up to Top Secret with SCI eligibility. What is the appropriate Clearance/Facility Clearance requirement for this contract?

o Answer: For award of basic IDIQ Contract, offeror is required to obtain/maintain a Secret facility clearance. However, task orders may require contractor to obtain resources and facility clearance at a higher level. SubFactor 1 (Management Plan) should address how your company plans to obtain appropriate levels of security clearance when required -- “Procedures for managing various levels of classification up to and including Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) and Cosmic Top Secret (CTS) including obtaining personnel with the appropriate security clearances.”

53. Will a JVC that has not been approved at proposal be considered a risk to government on trade off? If not, how will the government mitigate risk?

o Answer: No, but if the JVC is not approved at time of award, that offeror will not be the awardee.

54. Question: What are the provision or requirements, if any, under TDSS solicitation for teaming agreements (non JVC) and submittals? Example: if we are not forming a JVC but wanting to submit as a Prime & Sub Contracting team under a teaming agreement only.

o Answer: Prime contractor teaming agreements will not be evaluated.

Prime contractor can add/remove sub-contractors at their discretion to meet task order requirements.

o Note: All hourly labor rates, to include Sub-contractors, will have to adhere to the prime contractor approved cost line labor rates tables.

Profit/fee will be negotiated separately at the task order level.

55. Question: On page 5 of the solicitation it refers to a “an attached clause matrix” but I did not see an attachment. Is there a clause matrix?

o Answer: There was no clause matrix, this will be removed on the updated solicitation.

56. Question: The Government indicated that an ISO certification could be submitted in lieu of a Quality Control Plan. For Offerors responding as a JV, will the Government please confirm that an ISO certification from one of the JV members is acceptable?

o Answer: ISO certification from one of the JV members is acceptable.

However, ISO quality practices should extend to all JV members.

57. Question: The government references in this question and answer as well as the PWS that TOAP is a “system”. TOAP is also referenced in PWS paragraph 4.3.1.1(d), however is not listed in paragraph 4.4 Technical Data Systems list that the contractor shall have knowledge of.

Given that TOAP is the Air Force’s authoring and publishing “system”, can the government provide a system description, list of tools that make up the TOAP and which or if the list of technical data systems identified in paragraph 4.4 (in part of all of them) are part of the TOAP “system”?

o Answer: TOAP is synonymous with IDM in the PWS. It is a collection of COTS and GOTS components which provide a complete TO content management, sustainment and publishing environment which employs workflow-controlled process solutions for TO management and editorial workgroups. Further description can be found in TO 00- 5-3.

58. Can the Government confirm that CLIN X007(nn) is dedicated to support data conversion requirements at the task order level? If so, can the Government please re-name/update these appropriate CLINS to read “Data Conversion” in the description?

o Answer: CLIN 009 is dedicated to support data conversions.

Description will be updated.

59. Question: In Awardable Task paragraph 4.5.2, the Government refers to an '...existing S1000D data set.' Can the Government please clarify what the table below that paragraph, which cites 5000 data modules and 10 Monthly Routine Updates, represents?

o Answer: The awardable task was missing the following in 4.5.2, “The Contractor shall provide timely technical data sustainment and update support for newly fielded S1000D IETM data modules. The Contractor is expected to support routine S1000D sustainment update requirements at work levels described in the following table.”

Awardable task will be updated.