QA 16 Dec 11.doc

Questions and Answers

B-1 Advance Radar/Electronic Warfare Test Station (ARTS)

Request for Proposal (RFP) FA8533-11-R-31160

16 December 2011

The following questions have been received in the WR-ALC/GRVKBB, Major Programs Contracting Office on the above ARTS requirement. The questions as well as the applicable answers are provided below for assistance to all potential offerors for the greater understanding of the Government’s requirement.

Question 1: Reference: Solicitation Evaluation Basis for Award, section 4. Cost/Price, paragraph (iii) Total Evaluated Price, paragraph (b) Option Period 1: option 1 consists of four (4) years, on page 176.

The Note immediately following the header states: “The BEQ amount is for the entire option CLIN. In other words, the Government does not expect to order the BEQ amount in each year within the option.” Subparagraph (i) For price proposals that do not have quantity ranges for any CLINs: states “The Government will multiply the identified quantity by the proposed unit price to obtain an extended price for each CLIN (and Sub-CLIN)… The sum of all CLINs (and Sub-CLINs) will represent the evaluated price for the option 1 contract period. Further Subparagraph (ii) For those CLINs with a quantity of 1 states: “…For the calculation of TEP, the unit price proposed for each Sub-CLIN (year year) will be multiplied by 1 to calculate the evaluate price for that CLIN. For example the Evaluated price for CLIN 1002 will be the sum of the four years’ unit prices and that is what will be added into the Government TEP.”

Our interpretation is that the Total Evaluated Price for the TPS development and production CLINs (1002 – 1050) is as follows: The quantity within each individual Sub-CLIN is equal to the quantity, or BEQ, of the total CLIN. This results in a Total Evaluated Price that weights the quantity for each of these CLINs at ~4 times the actual expected BEQ. For example, CLIN For example, CLINs 1002 – 1023 indicate a quantity of 1 for each CLIN, and quantity 1 for each SubCLIN (AA – AD). The total evaluated price, as understood, will be evaluated based on a quantity of 88 (22 CLINS x 4 Sub-CLINs x Qty 1). Additionally, CLINs 1024 – 1050 (TPS Copies) indicate BEQ of either 5 or 7 for each CLIN, and BEQ of either 5 or 7 for each Sub-CLIN (AA – AD). The total evaluated price, as understood, will be evaluated based on a quantity of 716 ([5 CLINS x 4 Sub-CLINs x BEQ 5] + [22 CLINS x 4 Sub-CLINs x BEQ 7]).

Please confirm that our interpretation of TEP with respect to Option Period 1 is correct, or clarify if required.

Government Response: This interpretation is incorrect. Within the Option Period, each CLIN lists a BEQ and the SubCLINs also lists this BEQ (with the exception of CLIN 1001; see note on the bottom of page 32 of the solicitation). This is for the purpose of allowing offerors to provide quantity range pricing for each SubCLIN. The total BEQ for the CLIN is the BEQ shown on the top level. For example, CLIN 1024, at the description level, shows a BEQ of 5 ea; each SubCLIN (1024AA-1024AD) shows a BEQ of 5 ea (see Note 3 on page 32 of the solicitation). However, the total BEQ for this CLIN (and all CLINs referenced in Note 3 on page 32 of the solicitation) is not 20 ea; it is 5 ea as shown on the description level. The illustrations on pages 176 and 177 of the solicitation show the evaluation format the Government will use to calculate the evaluated price of the Option Period.

This information will be added to the RFP provision, “Evaluation Basis for Award” for clarification purposes via Amendment 0003.

Question 2: Will the Government consider provisions for Performance Based Milestone Payments in accordance with FAR 32.10?

Government Response: The “Interim Payments” clause on page 137 of the solicitation was written in accordance with the guidance in FAR 32.104 relative to performance based payments in commercial contracts.

Question 3: In the base Line items Numbers as called out in the solicitation, there is a provision statement for Limitations of Liability which states, “Other than High Value Item.” However, the only reference to Limitation of Liability as noted in the solicitation is in FAR 52.212-4 (p). Will the Government also include the provisions of FAR 52.246-24 Limitation of Liability – High Value Items in the solicitation to serve as the basis for the Limitations of Liability provision as stated in the base Line Item Numbers?

Government Response: This requirement is being procured using FAR part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, terms and conditions. FAR 52.212-4 includes terms and conditions which are, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with customary commercial practices. FAR 52.246-24 was reviewed before the issuance of the solicitation, and it is not applicable to this effort.

Question 4: Is it possible to receive a list of the solicitors that are participating in the ARTS RFP? This information would be useful to identify possible teaming arrangements.

Government Response: The Government does not have a list of possible solicitors participating in this requirement. It would not be permissible to release this information as it is considered Source Selection Information in accordance with FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

Question 5: Government answers #4 and #6 and Amendment 0002 dated 13 Dec 2011 revised the PD to Rev C. This revision changed the configuration of the tester, requiring additional analysis, changes to material, new suppliers, and revised quotations. Request a two week extension to the RFP closing date to allow for this additional work.

Government Response: The minor changes to the PD constitute a change in the performance requirement of ARTS, but do not constitute a “configuration” change. The “original” PD contained the requirement for two AC sources, and the revised PD also contains two AC sources. So, no configuration change was made from the perspective of adding or removing an entire capability (i.e. instrument). The PD changes were made simply to correct a mathematical error in calculating/determining the maximum current draw per phase and the total output power of the AC1 power source. Although the PD identifies the performance specifications for ARTS, a configuration change implies that a deviation from the configuration baseline has occurred. Since the ARTS has not been designed and approved through the required Design Reviews, including FCA/PCA, then a configuration baseline (i.e. product baseline) has not been established and/or approved. Until the point where a configuration baseline is established, the configuration is essentially in flux and can change based on technical analysis and/or technical guidance provided by the government during the required Design Review processes.

The PD change regarding the input power requirements was simply a point of clarification to specify both line-to-line voltage and line-to-neutral voltage. As such, an extension to the proposal due date of 24 Jan 2012 will not be considered at this time.

Question 6: Para 3.4.3 Training/Familiarization – This SOW paragraph lists DI-ILSS-80872 as the governing document for the Training Materials.

a) The DIILSS-80872 Para 10.2.1.2 Clinical Application Reads “…diagnostic or therapeutic use in the medical environment…” “…medical applications…” “…to communicate with medical personnel …” The language in DIILSS-80872 Para 10.2.1.2, is geared to medical type systems.

b) The DIILSS-80872 Para 10.2.1.3 Operating Procedures Reads “…interfacing the equipment with the patient…” The language in DIILSS-80872 Para 10.2.1.3, is geared to medical type systems.

Suggest tailoring of DIILSS-80872 Paragraphs 10.2.1.2 and 10.2.1.3.

Government Response: Paragraph 10.2.1.2 in its entirety is not applicable to this requirement. Paragraph 10.2.1.3 is applicable, save the third sentence that states, “It shall also include sufficient information for interfacing the equipment with the patient or simulators for routine use, as applicable.” The DD 1423 will be revised and incorporated into the solicitation via Amendment 0003 to show the specific tailoring of DIILSS-80872.

Question 7: Is it the Government intent to include the ITA development and first ITA delivery as part of the applicable TPS CLINS? SOW paragraph 3.3.1 requires quantity of 3 ITA but there is only a CLIN for Copy of two and no place to put the development and the third ITA.

Government Response: Yes, it is the Government’s intent to include the ITA development and first ITA delivery as part of the applicable TPS CLINs. However, SOW paragraph 3.3.1 speaks to the ARTS station, not the TPS ITA. SOW paragraph does require 3 preproduction test stations. SOW paragraph 3.3.2.5.3 discusses the TPS copies.

Question 8: CLINS 1024 and 1025 call out for five each. However, the sub CLINS call out quantity of five in each of the four option years. What is the correct total five or 20 of each type?

Government Response: Note 3 on page 32 of the solicitation discusses the Government’s intention in the option period. The Government’s BEQ for these CLINs (and all CLINs referenced in Note 3) is the BEQ listed at the description level. For example, the Government’s BEQ for CLIN 1024 is 5 ea, not 20 ea. The Government anticipates ordering an estimated quantity of 5 ea, but the Government does not know when the CLIN will be ordered; the Government does not anticipate ordering 5 ea in each year of the option. The only CLIN within the Option Period that does not follow this structure is CLIN 1001. The note at the bottom of page 32 of the solicitation discusses the Government’s intention in the structuring of CLIN 1001.

Question 9: The answer to Question 30 from the Government’s 12/13/11 posting indicates that the Government will accept legal size papers (8-1/2 x 14) to accommodate drawings, diagrams, illustrations, and other similar-type data. Please clarify whether the Government will accept 11x17 Tabloid paper versus 8-1/2 x 14 legal paper to accommodate these drawings. Use of 11x17 paper for fold outs allows for easy insertion and review of drawings electronically and in a binder; whereas, 8-1/2x14 paper requires special binding and requires the reviewer to have to turn the binder to review each drawing.

Government Response: As previously posted, the Government will accept 8 ½ x 14 legal size papers to accommodate drawings, diagrams, illustrations, and other similar-type data.