Questions_and_Answers_II.pdf

FA8533-16-R-0001 Bomber Armament Tester (BAT) Questions & Answers #2:

1. Question: Please confirm that ALL specifications of MIL-PRF-28800 are invoked for this procurement.

Answer: All requirements of MIL-PRF-28000F for Class 1 equipment are invoked by Specification paragraphs 3.1.1 and 3.1.16, except where a specific requirement is deviated or clarified in subparagraphs 3.1.16.1 thru 3.1.16.7.

2. RFP, Section M, paragraph 2.1 states: “Relative Importance of Each Factor and Subfactor: Within

Factor 1, Technical (which includes Technical Acceptability and Technical Risk) is slightly more important than Factor 2, all three subfactors are of equal importance. Evaluation Factors 1, Technical (which includes the Technical Acceptability and Technical Risk Ratings) and 2, Past

Performance are equal in importance and when combined are significantly more important than

Factor 4, Cost/Price.”

Question: The first sentence states that Factor 1 is slightly more important than Factor 2. However, the second sentence states that Factors 1 and 2 are equal in importance. Please clarify the relative importance of both Factors 1 and 2.

Answer: The language in Section M, paragraph 2.1 is hereby revised as follows. The amended

Section M language will be incorporated into the RFP, Amendment 0001 in its entirety.

FROM: “Relative Importance of Each Factor and Subfactor: Within Factor 1, Technical (which includes Technical Acceptability and Technical Risk) is slightly more important than Factor 2, all three subfactors are of equal importance. Evaluation Factors 1, Technical (which includes the

Technical Acceptability and Technical Risk Ratings) and 2, Past Performance are equal in importance and when combined are significantly more important than Factor 4, Cost/Price. However, Factor 4, Cost/Price is an important consideration in the best value award decision. It should be noted that

Factor 3, Small Business Concern Utilization, will be evaluated strictly on an acceptable/unacceptable basis as discussed below and therefore will not be considered in the tradeoff decision. The offeror must have an acceptable Technical proposal and Small Business

Concern Utilization to be considered in the tradeoff decision.”

TO: “Relative Importance of Each Factor and Subfactor: Within Factor 1, Technical, all three subfactors are of equal importance. Evaluation Factor 1, Technical (which includes the Technical

Acceptability and Technical Risk) is slightly more important than Factor 2, Past Performance. Factor1 and Factor 2 when combined are significantly more important than Factor 4, Cost/Price. However, Factor 4, Cost/Price is an important consideration in the best value award decision. It should be noted that Factor 3, Small Business Concern Utilization, will be evaluated strictly on an acceptable/unacceptable basis as discussed below and therefore will not be considered in the tradeoff decision. The offeror must have an acceptable Technical proposal and Small Business

Concern Utilization to be considered in the tradeoff decision.”

3. Question: Does the PPI tool have the capability to save and continue work at later times, prior to submission?

Answer: Yes, the PPI Tool provides the capability to save and continue work along the way, including logging out and back in again, for submission at a later time.

4. The Government states that “Hard copies of the pages generated from this tool shall be used in the hard copy of the past performance volume subject to the limitations outlined in this RFP and should be Tab 1 of the past performance volume.” These instructions are not stated in Section L.

Question: Please confirm whether hard copies of the pages generated from the PPI tool should be included in the hard copy of the past performance volume as Tab 1.

Answer: Yes, copies of the pages generated from the PPI Tool shall be printed out and included as hard copies in the Volume III, Past Performance 3-ring binder. The instructions in Section L of the

RFP direct offerors to utilize the instructions set forth in RFP Attachment 3, Past Performance

Information (PPI) for Offerors, from which the above direction was derived.

5. There were some BOE items not included in the Pricing Templates. The following BOE items are missing from Attachment 11.

Question: Will the government revise Attachment 11 to include the following BOE items?

3.9.4 BAT System Familiarization, Production

3.9.6.3 Engineering and Contract Change Proposals

Answer: BAT System Familiarization for production and OT&E is covered by CLINs 0007, 1007, and

2007 for Increments I, II, and III, respectively. Offerors shall submit proposed labor hours associated with BAT System Familiarization within the appropriate BOE sheet by CLIN. Note that Training (i.e.

familiarization) is included in the Notional CWBS as item 1.10.

Offerors shall not include proposed labor hours associated with Engineering Change Proposals or

Contract Change Proposals.

6. Reference the Total Resources BOE Labor Summary section in Section 5 of L: Total Resources

Volume (WBS Breakout).

Question: In Attachment 11, BOE Labor Summaries, please confirm whether the SOW citations in the attachment columns are fixed as provided, or notional examples.

Answer: The SOW citations in the columns are “fixed as provided” and shall not be modified.

7. Reference the Total Resources BOE Labor Summary section in Section 5 of L: Narrative Basis of

Estimate:

Question: Please confirm the narrative description limitation of 100 words applies to only the description, and not the explanation/rationale.

Answer: The limitation of 100 words solely applies to the narrative for each CWBS element, which includes the description and the explanation/rationale. It should be noted that the number of CWBS elements is variable in accordance with the guidance in Section L, paragraph G(5).

8. In Statement of Work (3.7.f) – Systems Engineering Technical Reviews (SETRs) the Government states that the Contractor shall conduct System Verification Reviews (SVRs) at the system-level and for each separate TPS. However, in SOW sections 4.1.5, 5.1.3, and 6.1.3, the entrance criteria requirements for conducting an SVR address only system-level activities. There is no indication that separate TPS-level SVRs are required; or, should have occurred prior to the system-level SVR.

Question: Please confirm whether or not TPS-level SVRs are required in addition to the system-level

SVRs for each increment.

Answer: TPS-level SVRs are not required. However, a FIAT for each TPS is required. Each TPS will be accepted separately based on a successful completion of its FIAT.

9. The BAT Performance Specification paragraph 3.1.1.16.1, states, “…the BAT System shall meet High

Temperature with Solar Radiation per requirements defined in MIL-STD-810G, Method 505.5, Procedure I, in a simulated Hot Dry (A1) climate. The BAT System shall be in operational configuration and shall be required to successfully pass system self-test as well as a simulation of typical steady state loading and use of stimulus and measurement devices as anticipated for the most strenuous and lengthy B-2A UUT TPS, during the maximum BAT System temperature response period of the exposure cycle.” The G revision of MIL-STD-810 does not have a 505.5 SOLAR

RADIATION; however, it does have a 505.6 SOLAR RADIATION (SUNSHINE).

Recommend updating the Performance Specification to reflect the correct MIL-STD-810G procedure.

Response: The performance specification now references 505.6. Refer to the updated Bomber

Armament Tester Performance Specification dated 18 May 16 incorporated in RFP Amendment

0001.

10. The BAT performance specification, paragraph 3.1.16.4 Altitude specifies 15000 feet testing altitude

IAW MIL-STD-810G Method 500.5. However, Rev G of MIL-STD-810 has operation altitude tests as

500.6.

Recommend updating the Performance Specification to reflect the correct MIL-STD-810G procedure.

Response: The specification now references 500.6. Refer to the updated Bomber Armament Tester

Performance Specification dated 18 May 16 incorporated in RFP Amendment 0001.

11. The SOW, Section B.1.2, Other Government Documents, Drawings, and Publications, contains "DOD-

5200.28-STD; Dtd: 15 Aug 1983; Security Requirements for Automated Data Processing Systems, Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria" which is not referenced in the body of the SOW and has been superseded by DOD 8510.01, RMF.

Question: Would the Government please identify if specific tasking is expected based on this reference or will this reference be removed?

Answer: There is no specific tasking from DOD-5200.28-STD. The reference has been removed from Section B.1.2. Refer to the updated SOW dated 16 May 16 incorporated in RFP Amendment

12. SOW Para 3.95 reads "The Contractor shall identify and recommend logical spare/repair parts sufficient to meet system/equipment operation and supportability in accordance with the Air Force

Initial Provisioning Performance Specification."

Question: When will the Air Force provide the IPPS?

Answer: The IPPS and attachments were erroneously omitted. The IPPS and attachments will be provided with CDRL A00D Logistics Product Data in RFP Amendment 0001.

13. Question: For proposal purposes, please confirm the notional contract award date.

Answer: The Government cannot confirm a notional award date; however, for the purpose of proposal preparation contractors should anticipate award within the 2nd Quarter of FY17.

14. Question: OCI Clause 5352.209-9000 (Oct 2010) contains restricting language that I believe would cause an issue with performance on this effort. Please let me know if you agree and if the RFP will be updated as a result.

Answer: The referenced OCI clause has been deleted from this requirement as reflected in RFP

Amendment 0001.

15. RFP Part II - Contract Clauses Section I page 45 includes the 252.234-7004 Cost and Software Data

Reporting System – Basic (NOV 2014) clause.

Question: Does the Government intend for the contractor to use the same CWBS reporting structure in the CSDR Plan?

Answer: The CSDR clause has been deleted from this requirement as reflected in RFP Amendment