Questions_and_Answers_V.pdf

FA8533-16-R-0001 Bomber Armament Tester (BAT) Questions & Answers #5

1. We understand that according to Section M, paragraph 3.4.3 “Cost Realism” a Most Probable

Cost (MPC) will be used in making a determination of best value. We also understand that the cost-type CLINs referenced in Section M, paragraph 3.4.4 will be subject to an MPC adjustment via a cost realism analysis.

Question: Should the TEP language for these CLINs reflect a calculation that includes the

Most Probable Cost instead of Proposed Target Cost as the language currently reads?

Answer: Section M, Paragraph 3.4.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP), has been amended to reflect a change to Notes 1, 2, and 3, and CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 0003AA, 0003AB, 0003AC, 1003AA, 1003AB, 2003AA, and 2003AB. All other Section M verbiage remains unchanged.

2. BAT Statement of Work, Section 1.2.4, Government Data Rights. The first paragraph of this section notes that "All hardware, software, firmware, development environments and technical data items delivered under this contract that are not Commercial Off the Shelf

(COTS) shall be delivered with Government Purpose Rights, at a minimum, for the BAT

System to be maintained, sustained, modified, re-used, or re-procured competitively at the discretion of the Government after the contract is concluded." However, the second paragraph of this section notes that "All software executables and source code developed by the contractor for the BAT System shall be property of the Government for unlimited use. This includes BAT Core tester software, TPS, and qualification software. BAT Core

Tester software is defined as the operating system software, firmware, power-on confidence test software, self-test software, calibration software, test executive software, system recovery and/or security software required to meet cybersecurity requirements." These two paragraphs appear in conflict with one another regarding software rights to be provided the government. The first paragraph allows software to be delivered with Government Purpose

Rights, but the second paragraph notes that all software must be provided with unlimited rights. In addition, these two paragraphs are not in accordance with RFP clause DFARS

252.227-7014, Rights in Noncommercial Computer Software and Noncommercial Computer

Software Documentation.

Question: Will the government resolve the disconnect regarding software rights to be provided by the contractor?

Answer: In response to the question regarding software rights to be provided by the contractor, the Government has clarified SOW Paragraph 1.2.4 Government Data Rights.

The clarified verbiage is in SOW Rev 2, dated 15 June 16, as incorporated in RFP

Amendment 0002.

3. Considering the direction provided in SOW Paragraph 1.2.4, please provide clarification on software rights to be provided to the Government.

Question: Will the government accept an offeror's proposal which includes the pricing for multiple licenses of the RTS software? Will the Government accept this software without unlimited rights? If not, will the Government provide the required number of RTS software licenses to the contractor during execution?

Answer: Determination of technical acceptability is based upon the evaluation factors within Section L and M and meets the requirements set forth in the Performance

Specification and Statement of Work. The Government has clarified SOW Paragraph 1.2.4

Government Data Rights, in SOW Rev 2, dated 15 June 16, as incorporated in RFP

Amendment 0002.

4. In the Q&As # 15, we understand that a copy of our Industrial Safety and Health Plan is required to be submitted with our proposal. This is a lengthy document. Please confirm that we may submit this plan in electronic form only (not a printed hardcopy).

Answer: No. That is not correct. The Safety and Health Plan shall be submitted in the format(s) consistent with the Volume I Completed RFP instructions in Section L of the RFP under the Number of Copies column. See notice in RFP Amendment 0002.

Question: We have received notice from one of our past performance POC’s that the individual that will be providing the completed questionnaire to the Government is not the same POC that we have listed in the PPI tool (and hardcopy printout). Do you require change pages to our submission to highlight the new POC or is an e-mail notification with the new POC information sufficient?

Answer: Any changes to previously-identified past performance POCs should be updated by page change(s). The page change(s) may be submitted as an email attachment to the contracting officer in order to expedite the notification process.