Final Industry RFP QAs - 30 Oct 09.pdf

VDATS RFP FA8535-09-R-0001

INDUSTRY Q&As

GENERAL

GENERAL # 1

QUESTION: Concerning the spares, does the government anticipate the ordering of complete spare “assemblies” that would include peripheral hardware such as brackets and such? If so, there would be a substantial cost savings to the government over the years to not provide these type items (accessories) since most are failure free and only provide the “end item”. For example, drawing number 200625862, Arbitrary Function Generator Assembly, has the Function Generator (200625869) and also calls for the AFG Rack Mount Kit (200625870) plus adapters (200625871), plus cables that need to be manufactured. While the failure may be attributed only to the generator itself, there will be cost added to include these peripheral items. Is the government expecting “Assemblies” (Generator, Rack Mount Kit, Adapters, Cables, etc) as spares or just the major component of the “end item” (Generator)?

ANSWER: The Government, in this case, has asked that the contractor provide the items in the configuration shown by the drawings that are listed in Appendix B of the PBWS. That means, for example, that the item specified by "... drawing number 200625862, Arbitrary Function Generator Assembly, has the Function Generator (200625869) and also calls for the AFG Rack Mount Kit (200625870) plus adapters (200625871), plus cables that need to be manufactured."

GENERAL # 2

QUESTION: Rather than using the identified vendor for misc. parts, can all offeror’s supply the same item from the OEM/distributor (i.e. buy rack from OEM rather than Teradyne)?

ANSWER: No; must buy as defined in VDATS technical package (i.e. buy Teradyne rack)

GENERAL # 3

QUESTION: Where will the acceptance testing of completed stations be accomplished?

ANSWER: Acceptance testing will be performed by the contractor at the contractor's facilities. Certificate of Conformance and Acceptance Test Report shall be provided with the test station.

GENERAL # 4

QUESTION: The text states that offerors are to return shipments at contractor expense.

Can we assume that all shipments to contractor facility will originate at a CONUS site?

ANSWERS: Yes. Return shipments to the contractor facility will originate at a CONUS site.

GENERAL # 5

QUESTION: There will inevitably be additional items discontinued, either during the bid process or shortly thereafter that would not allow these items to be purchased new for either build-to-print VDATS station requirements or for VDATS Parts Availability requirements. For example, the HPXW440 computer has been discontinued. In cases like this, how should these items be handled by the interested bidders?

ANSWERS: It is well understood that obsolescence issues will arise during the period of contract performance. The VDATS engineering team should be notified as early as possible that a potential shortage exists and that manufacture or parts availability will be affected. In the case of the xw4400 workstation, a replacement is identified within the TDP addendum.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)

RFP # 1

QUESTION: Section H‐ 901 Monthly Billing and Annual Reconciliation

Please clarify the administration of H‐ 901 with regard to monthly billing and the annual reconciliation. Can you please provide a formula (example for CLIN X011AE) of the monthly billing, annual reconciliation process and the incentive structure here?

ANSWER: The successful Offeror will be allowed monthly billing for Parts Availability (X011, X012 and X013). The annual reconciliation refers to the performance metrics reported each month. This data will be reviewed on a monthly basis to measure and document the successful Offeror’s performance which will also support approval of monthly payments. At the end of each period of performance, the annual reconciliation will be calculated. If the annual performance metric of 90% on-time delivery is met, the successfully Offeror is authorized to bill for the amount identified under CLIN X015.

RFP # 2

QUESTION: Referenced Notes Section Missing - Section B. (ref CLIN 1004 for example) lists several CLINs with pricing “TBD” and references a “See Notes” section. The “Notes” section appears to be missing from the Schedule.

ANSWER: Item Numbers 0005 – 0008 are reserved for future use and are marked TBD? This does not apply to the previous CLIN (1004AA). The “See Note” applies to the previous CLIN (1004). The “See Note” refers to the “Ship To/Mark For” note at the end of Schedule B which states as follows:

“Ship To/Mark For”: To be provided within 30 days of required delivery.

RFP # 3

QUESTION: Clarification of BEQ and Delivery requirements - Can the Government please reconcile the BEQ versus the required delivery requirement in Section B?

There appears to be inconsistency with several CLINS primarily the option‐ years (please see CLIN 4002AB for example).

ANSWER: The BEQs for 4002AB is for a quantity of 3 and the quantity under required delivery is 7 and it should be a quantity of 3. The BEQs in the schedule should be the same as the required delivery.

RFP # 4

QUESTION: The attached DD254 indicates that the VDATS Program will carry a Secret Clearance requirement but the solicitation indicates that it will be an unclassified program. Please clarify?

ANSWER: Yes, VDATS itself is unclassified. However, support for classified programs is anticipated.

RFP # 5

QUESTION: RFP Section L.2.b – Organization RFP Section L.2.b states, “Failure to submit the Present/Past Performance Volume III ten days prior to the oral technical proposal submission……..” However, the Solicitation Due Date Information Proposal Submittal Schedule in this same section states that Volume III Present/Past Performance 9 and associated attachments are due on 5 October 2009. Is the Volume III information due on 5 October 2009 or ten days prior to 5 October 2009? Please clarify.

ANSWER: Volume III information is due on 5 October, not 10 days prior.

RFP # 6

QUESTION: RFP Section L.4.e – Volume III – Present and Past Performance RFP Section L.4.e states, “The Offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself and each proposed critical subcontractor in accordance with the format contained in the “FACTS Sheet (See RFP Attachment 9) and the following paragraphs.” However, the RFP FACTS Sheet Attachment provided with the RFP is actually Attachment 11. In addition, there was no Attachment 9 provided with the Solicitation Document. Please clarify.

ANSWER: The correct reference is Attachment 11.

RFP # 7

QUESTION: RFP Section L.4.e (i) – Volume III – Present and Past Performance RFP Section L.3.e(i) states, “A sample Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form is attached to this RFP (See RFP Attachment 10).” However, the Sample Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form provided with the RFP is actually Attachment 12. In addition, there was no Attachment 10 provided with the Solicitation Document. Please clarify.

ANSWER: The correct reference is Attachment 12.

RFP # 8

QUESTION: RFP Section L.4.e (v) – Volume III – Present and Past Performance RFP Section L.3.e(v) states, “The Offeror shall send out – and track the completion of – the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (See RFP Attachment 11).” However, the Past Performance Questionnaire Tracking Record provided with the RFP is actually Attachment 16. Please clarify.

ANSWER: The Present/Past Performance “FACTS Sheet” (Attachment 11) and the Past Performance Questionnaire Tracking Record (Attachment 16) are two different documents and should be referenced as noted herein.

RFP # 9

QUESTION: RFP Section L.4.e (v) – Volume III – Present and Past Performance RFP Section L.3.e(v) states, “The Transmittal Letter (See RFP Attachment 12) shall be used by the Offeror in sending out the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires.” However, the RFP Transmittal Letter provided with the RFP is actually Attachment 14. Please clarify.

ANSWER: The correct reference is Attachment 14.

RFP # 10

QUESTION: RFP Section L.4.e (v) – Volume III – Present and Past Performance RFP Section L.3.e(v) states, “Each of the Offeror’s POCs shall e‐ mail its completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire directly to:

WR‐ ALC/(_____). We are assuming that the missing address in this section is the same address as that provided in the RFP Transmittal Letter(RFP Attachment 14). Please confirm.

ANSWER: Yes, the response address is the same as referenced in Attachment 14.

RFP # 11

QUESTION: RFP Section L.4.e (vi) – Volume III – Present and Past Performance RFP Section L.3.e(vi) states, “A sample client authorization letter is attached to this RFP (See RFP Attachment 13).” However, the RFP client authorization letter provided with the RFP is actually Attachment 15.

Please clarify.

ANSWER: The correct reference is Attachment 15.

RFP # 12

QUESTION: RFP Section L.4.e (vii) – Volume III – Present and Past

Performance RFP Section L.3.e(vii) states, “A Present/Past Performance Questionnaire Tracking Record, (See RFP Attachment 14)……….” However, the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire Tracking Record provided with the RFP is actually Attachment 16. Please clarify.

ANSWER: The correct reference is Attachment 16.

RFP # 13

QUESTION: RFP Section L.3.f – Volume IV – Cost/Price Volume – and RFP Section 2.b – Solicitation Due Date Information Proposal Submittal Schedule RFP Section L.3.f states, “The Government will issue a formal request for Volume IV, “Cost/Price Volume,” prior to oral presentations. The date for submittal of Volume IV, “Cost/Price Volume” will constitute formal closing of the RFP.” However, the Solicitation Due Date Information Proposal Submittal Schedule, included in Section 2.b states that Volume IV: Cost/Price is due on 5 October 2009. Please clarify the due date for Volume IV: Cost/Price.

ANSWER: The “Cost/Price” Volume due date will be the same as the due date for the

RFP.

RFP # 14

QUESTION: RFP – Section 2.d (i) Volume II, Technical Proposal – Mission

Capability, Subfactors 1, 2, 3 and 4, Briefing Charts, Oral Presentations Within this section the RFP states, “ The oral presentation shall be given by key personnel responsible for project performance such as program manager(s) and supervisor(s)…… The ten minute corporate introduction may be presented by an individual or team of not more that (3) representatives at any level”. In addition, Section 2.1.4.ix states, “No oral presenter can be higher than the program manager who will actually be responsible for this effort.” These statements contradict themselves. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Corporate personnel can attend and participate in the corporate introduction but cannot participate in the technical oral presentation.

RFP # 15

QUESTION: Section L indicates the quantities of the proposal volumes to be provided.

Does a reference to 'two copies' mean a total of only two copies or the original plus two copies? Will the government please clarify this issue so all offerors provide the same, correct number of copies for review purposes?

ANSWER: 2 copies means the original plus one copy

RFP # 16

QUESTION: In accordance with the terms and conditions stated on Teradyne’s RFQ, delivery on the High Power VXI Chassis is stated to be 21 weeks or 147 days after receipt of Purchase Order thus not allowing the contractor ample time for integration and delivery of a system to the government in the required time. If a defective unit is received, replacement time is quoted to be 4 additional weeks. Tyonek is requesting a revision of the required delivery from 150 days to 210 days. This would allow sufficient time to receive materials, and/or allow time for replacement of defective materials(s), and final assembly.

ANSWER: Per PBWS paragraph 4.1.6.2, the Government has already provided an additional 30 days for first article delivery to allow offerors the opportunity to establish the necessary vendor relationships to support this requirement. All succeeding orders will be held to the 150 day delivery requirement.

RFP # 17

QUESTION: Under Technical Data Package (TDP) for NSN 4920-01-553-1534 and NSN 4920-01-553-0693, Drawing Number 200625633, DA DRAWING TREE, has Drawing Number 200625700, SELF-TEST ITA AND ASSOCIATED HARDWARE, listed as a subassembly. However, all of the Drawings listed under 200625700 are also present in the two above referenced TDP’s, as well as the PDP for NSN 4920-01-573- 4490. Is it required that the Self Test ITA and associated hardware be priced with the DA-1, DA-2, and as a standalone, or just as a standalone assembly?

ANSWER: The stocklisting data for these NSNs refers to both PNs (200625631 and 200625630). The part numbers referenced in the RFP for NSN 4920-01-553-1534 and NSN 4920-01-553-0693 are for DA-2 and DA-1 respectively and both include associated hardware. The appropriate part numbers for the DA-2 and DA-1 should be the part numbers for the DA assembly only without the associated hardware which is PN 200625631-20 (CAGE 98752) for NSN 4920-01-553-1534 and PN 200625631-10 (CAGE 98753) for NSN 4920-01-553-0693. These are DA-2 and DA-1 respectively (without ITA). The drawing tree (200625633) starts at TLD 200625630 which is DA-1 and DA-2 combined with ITA. The ITA is standalone and has NSN 4920-01-573-4490 and PN 200625700 (CAGE 98752).

RFP # 18

QUESTION: RFP Selection L.4.e(ii) states “…Facts Sheets for each relevant contract covers no more than both sides of two sides of 8-1/2” x 11”. However, Attachment # 11 (Fact Sheets ) Item F. states, “…this is limited to two page beyond the page limitation of the Fact Sheet information.” Are the Fact Sheets to be limited to four or six pages?

ANSWER: The Facts Sheet information is stated as both sides of 8-12” X 11” which equates to four pages. Attachment #11 (Fact Sheet), Item F is limited to two pages beyond the Fact Sheet information limitation which would be equal to six pages total.

PERFORMANCE BASED WORK STATEMENT (PBWS)

PBWS # 1

QUESTION: CDRL A006 block 5 refers to PBWS paragraph 3.0; is this correct?

There does not appear to be a correlation here since 3.0 discusses GFP. Please clarify.

ANSWER: A008 was uploaded to FedBizOps twice and one upload was erroneously posted to A006.

PBWS # 2

QUESTION: CDRL A007 block 5 refers to PBWS paragraph 4.3; is this correct?

In addition, since the CLIN structure is based on FFP unit prices under a Requirements type contract, in what respect would the Government require reporting of labor hours?

ANSWER: See Block 16 (Remarks). Reporting requirement applicable only when Progress Payments are approved and utilized.

PBWS # 3

QUESTION: CDRL A008 block 5 refers to PBWS paragraph 3.0 (which discusses GFP); is this correct? There is no requirement in the PBWS for technical studies.

This CLIN is also inconsistent across the CLIN structure from year to year.

ANSWER: CDRL A008 is a one-time delivery and only applies to Year 1 and is not applicable for Years 2 – 5. PBWS paragraph 3.0 requires submission of a Safety Plan.

PBWS # 4

QUESTION: CDRL A004 and A008 both reference DI‐ MISC‐ 80508B/T. Is this correct?

ANSWER: Yes. A004 requires delivery of EDE data and A008 requires delivery of the Safety Plan.

PBWS # 5

QUESTION: File document PDF A006 provided on FEDBIZOPS is a duplicate of A008. Also, there is some confusion between the PBWS reference for A006 and Schedule B CLIN.

ANSWER: A008 was uploaded twice and erroneously for A006.

PBWS # 6

QUESTION: As stated in the PBWS: "The contractor will be provided a 30 day “grace” period to allow initial lay-in of assets. However, the Government may place parts availability orders upon contract award. Any unfilled requisitions in existence when the grace period ends will be subject to the delivery requirement beginning the first business day after grace period expiration."

Many of the replacement items identified in Appendix B for both the DA-1 & DA-2 as well as the RF Roll-up have lead times greater than 30 days. How can the contractor be expected to meet this requirement? Will the government please adjust the in-lay time period to 90 days?

ANSWER: The Government IPT has reviewed this request and the requirement remains as is (30 days).

PBWS # 7

QUESTION: As stated in the PBWS: "For all requisitions requiring delivery outside the continental United States (OCONUS), the contractor shall ship the item to a CONUS Air Force Base such as Dover AFB or Travis AFB for further transportation by Air Force carrier as directed by WR-ALC. The contractor shall have met their availability requirement for this contract for OCONUS destinations upon receipt of each requisition at CONUS transfer sites such as shown above."

Will the CONUS Air Force Base address be given as the destination address or will the item’s final destination address be given in the order?

ANSWER: FOB Destination will be provided with each individual delivery order.

PBWS # 8

QUESTION: As stated in the PBWS: "The contractor shall supply Unique Identifiers in accordance with DFARS 252.211 – 7007 and VDATS technical data package."

Is this requirement for the VDATS systems only or are Unique Identifiers (IUID) required for subassemblies and spares as well? Will the government please clarify?

ANSWER: DFARS is the higher level requirement. If the spares require marking, then that marking is vendor dependent. The markings must meet the requirements of MIL- STD-130, but the marking is not dictated by the drawing.

PRICING

PRICING # 1

QUESTION: Where is the Calibration Interface Test Adapter TRU’s to be priced?

This requirement is not reflected on the Pricing Matrix provided as Attachment 17.

ANSWER: On Attachment 17 as X010AD with columns provided for Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3. Also, X010AD with columns provided for input are located under Option I (Year 4) and Option II (Year 5).

PRICING # 2

QUESTION: Valid Item Descriptions - Can you please validate item descriptions on the pricing matrix provided as Attachment 17 to the RFP? The item description for A002AB appears to be mislabeled. CLIN X002AB Basic and it’s Option CLINs is missing the item description.

ANSWER: 0002AB applies only to Year 1 (BEQ quantity of 7) for DA-1 Production.

X002AB should be labeled DA-1 and applies to Year 2 and 3, Option I and Option I as a

BEQ quantity of 3.

DRAWINGS

DRAWINGS # 1

QUESTION: Data Item Description DI‐ MISC‐ 80639C referenced on A003 cannot be found in the ASSIST system. Can the Government provide a hard copy of the DID or provide a correction?

ANSWER: The availability of DID DI-MISC-80639C in ASSIST has been verified and it is in ASSIST.

DRAWINGS # 2

QUESTION: The following items listed in Appendix B for Replacement Items Supported

IAW Paragraph 4.2 for VDATS Digital/Analog Test Station (DA-1 & DA-2) have part numbers that are not consistent with the part numbers on the VDATS drawings:

PART NUMBER CAGE DESCRIPTION UNITS PER ASSY

3150039-01 0FEJ7 20 KVA PDU 1

RFP-A305K-875 25965 AC MODULE 3

What are the correct part numbers for these items?

ANSWER: This drawing is being corrected. A copy of the Engineering Order (EO) is located in the TDP addendum.

DRAWINGS # 3

QUESTION: The following items listed in Appendix B for Replacement Items Supported IAW Paragraph 4.2 for the Radio Frequency Roll-Up and Calibration ITA have part numbers that are not consistent with the part numbers on the VDATS drawings:

PART NUMBER CAGE DESCRIPTION UNITS PER ASSY

3150035-01 0FEJ7 10 KVA PDU (A1A1) 1

11679 1LQK8 DETECTOR EXTENSION CABLES 2

52200060 0B5C1 1X6 TERMINATED RELAY MODULE 10

What are the correct part numbers for these items?

ANSWER: The latest PBWS does not have commercial part numbers in Appendix B.

All part numbers in Appendix B should now refer to drawings within the VDATS TDP.

DRAWINGS # 4

QUESTION: There are several items within Appendix B that include a top level assembly and the components within the assembly. Is the intent to provide “parts availability” support for both the top level assembly and the individual components or only the top level assembly? Specific examples include the DC Load Assembly 200625861-01 and the RF Switching Assembly 200626054-10. (shown below)

Description Part Number Quantity DC Load Assembly (A1A6) 200625861-01 1 Load Module (A1A6A0, A1A6A1) 150 watt 200625866-01 2 Load Module (A1A6A2, A1A6A3) 250 watt 200625866-03 2 Load Module (A1A6A4, A1A6A5) 300 watt 200625866-05 2

Description Part Number Quantity

RF Switching Assembly 200626054-10 1 1X2 Terminated Relay Module 200626057 6 1X6 Terminated Relay Module 200626056 10

ANSWER: The intent is to provide parts availability for both the individual modules as well as the complete instrument including the modules.

DRAWINGS # 5

QUESTION: Items in the following list are either in Appendix B for Replacement Items

Supported IAW Paragraph 4.2 for VDATS Digital/Analog Test Station (DA-1 & DA-2) or are production hardware. These items are obsolete or have been discontinued by the manufacturer:

PART NUMBER CAGE DESCRIPTION UNITS PER ASSY

3152A 05N39 VXI AWG (A2A2A9) and (A2A2A10) 2

Q5911A 3UFE8 PRINTER 1

940BX 3UFE8 MONITOR 1

ST3160811AS 0C6F3 HARD DRIVE 1

The following item listed in Appendix B for Replacement Items Supported IAW

Paragraph 4.2 for the Radio Frequency Roll-Up and Calibration ITA is obsolete or has been discontinued by the manufacturer:

PART NUMBER CAGE DESCRIPTION UNITS PER ASSY

200626072-10 98752 VECTOR NETWK ANALYZER ASSEM (A2A3) 1

1: Since the Government’s previous response on obsolescence issues (addressed in the response to Industry questions dated 5 June 2009) stated the following:

“The Government maintains strict configuration control over the product baseline.

Obsolescence will be managed by the VDATS Program Office which will provide obsolescence information to the contractor.”

How should the above obsolete/discontinued items be handled from both a build-to-print aspect for new VDATS stations and a parts replacement aspect for VDATS Parts

Availability requirements by interested bidders?

2: Will the VDATS Program Office define the equivalent replacement items for the obsolete items identified? (Note: From using the EADS-Racal 3152A on other programs, there is not a drop-in replacement currently available from EADS.) For example:

Part Number Item Description Manufacture Manufacture PN Old Manufacture

Suggested Replacement PN

200626083 Power Meter Agilent Tech E4419B N1914A

ANSWER: We have addressed obsolescence replacements for these items within the addendum to the TDP. The Power Meter replacement is currently in qualification testing for use as an obsolescence replacement.

ELECTRONIC DATA EXCHANGE (EDE)

EDE # 1

QUESTION: The EDE elements as defined in this paragraph appear to be addressing individual replacement items. From PBWS paragraph 4.2.1.1, the Government could order a large number of items for one or more testers during a given year. Is it acceptable to have one EDE transaction (Unique Transaction Number) for each individual returned part? In other words, is the intent to never have more than one part returned using a single “Unique Transaction Number”? Will the government please clarify?

ANSWER: The Government will not submit bulk orders under the EDE. Each requirement for a replacement part will be identified individually and should have a unique transaction number assigned for tracking purposes.

GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY (GFP)

GFP #1

QUESTION: Will any GFE equipment be provided for the FA testing besides the units that the Vendor will fabricate? If not, then the FA test will be conducted with Vendor fabricated equipment that has not been validated elsewhere. We would suggest that a GFE Self-Test ITA be provided for the DA-1, DA-2 and RF-1. Will the government please clarify this issue?

ANSWER: GFE will be provided according to the PBWS. The Self-Test ITA that you mention is being provided as GFP IAW PBWS Appendix B.

GFP # 2

QUESTION: If an RF-1 roll up will not be provided as GFE, how can the contractor validate failed RF carcasses returned from the field (pre repair) and validate repaired RF carcasses (post repair)? Will the government please clarify?

ANSWER: GFP DA-2 is not provided for diagnosis and acceptance of Tester Replaceable Units (TRUs). The DA-2 is provided for acceptance test of ITAs and RF-1 units. Spares shall be functional IAW OEM SPECIFICATIONS.