QAs.docx

CBM+/HUMs Questions and Answers

1. Question: We were anticipating a Contract ceiling of ~$50M. The DRFP states “B.2 CONTRACT MINIMUM/MAXIMUM – IAW FAR 52.216-22(b) Indefinite Quantity, the contract “minimum” is CLIN 0001 and the “maximum” Is $10,000,000.00. Can you clarify whether $10M is the maximum for each ordering period, or is $10M the maximum for the total life of the contract?

Answer: $9.8M is the contract maximum. The clause at FAR 52.216-19 addresses order limitations and section (b) specifically addresses the order maximum. The order maximum amount is $3,000,000.

2. Question: The DRFP references attachments 1-12, but only 1-3, and 10 are available in SAM.gov. Are you able to provide attachments 4-9, and 11-12?

Answer: Yes, they have been uploaded.

3. Question: The PWS is controlled in SAM.gov and we’ve requested access. Are you able to provide the PWS through encrypted email?

Answer: Offerors can submit a request for access to the PWS and any other controlled documents through the SAM.gov website by providing a request that includes the justification for access to the controlled document.

4. Question: Is this a new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services. If not brand new, could you please provide the current/previous contract number?

Answer: This is a new contract as it is the first time the Government is procuring these services competitively. The Government previously procured these services via contract number FA8552-17-C-0006.

5. Question: Is this related to FA8552-21-PLUS Rotary Wing Condition Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) Through Health and Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) Engineering Support, released 30 Jun 2021? This most recent response encompasses the UH-1N, TH-1H, and the MH-139A Aircraft, where as last year’s solicitation was for the HH-60G and the HH-60W only.

Answer: Yes, this synopsis/draft RFP is related to FA8552-21-PLUS. The original announcement referenced the HH-60G, HH-60W, MH-139A, TH-1H, and UH-1N weapon systems in the first and third paragraph of the description. A link to FA8552-21-PLUS has been added below the attachments.

This most recent response encompasses the UH-1N, TH-1H, and the MH-139A Aircraft, where as last year’s solicitation was for the HH-60G and the HH-60W only.

6. Question: which size standard is going to be applied for this solicitation? The basic size standard of $22.5m or the $41.5m for the exception for Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons?

Answer: The FAR Provision 52.204-8 indicates the NAICS code for this acquisition is 541330 and the small business size standard is $41.50. The exception for Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons is being applied.

7. Question: The requirement for Section L Subfactor 2 - request clarification on the implementation of Cybersecurity implementation requirements. Is the requirement for both the On-Board Software System(s) and the Ground Support Stations or just the Ground Station System?

Answer: Subfactor Two in Section L, titled "Cybersecurity Expertise for HUMS On-board System and Ground Station System," is intended to reflect the requirement for cybersecurity support for both the On-board System and Ground Station System. See PWS paragraphs 4.3.7 ("HUMS OBS Updates") and

4.3.8 ("Cybersecurity of CBM Tools ") for further descriptions.

8. Question: Who presently does the software maintenance and upgrades for these aircraft the OEM's or the USAF?

Answer: IVHMS software maintenance and upgrades are a mixture of OEM-generated, DOD-generated, and USAF-generated.

9. Question: Is it possible to get have a discussion with our team and the Air Force team to better understand these requirements. We are open to any timing for the meeting that is in line with FAR and Department guidance.

Answer: The Government is encouraged to exchange information among interested parties before receipt of proposals in accordance with FAR 15.201. However, in order to maintain procurement integrity requirements and prevent unfair advantage, any questions/discussions an offeror has with the Government in regards to this effort at this stage of the procurement should be released to the public. As such, the preference is for written communication to ensure information is distributed fairly.

10. Question: What are the actual deliverables for this pre-solicitation? Are you only looking for questions only or is there some other deliverable that is due tomorrow (26 May 2022)?

Answer: The purpose of the draft solicitation was to provide an opportunity to examine draft documents and relay inquiries prior to the Final RFP posting. No deliverables are due from any potential offerors at this time.

11. Question: You mention attachment 9 in the Q&A and in the RFP, but I do not see attachment 9 on SAM.gov. Am I overlooking it?

Answer: Attachment 9, Cost Model, did not upload correctly at the original time of posting. It has been reuploaded.

12. Question: The solicitation on SAM.GOV states that this presolicitation is intended to be a Small Business Set-Aside. However, RFP paragraphs “L.D.6.” and “M.II.3.D.6” address Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts. It is unclear how a Small Business offeror will be evaluated for Small Business Compliance. Please provide clarification

Answer: Each offeror will be evaluated on their compliance with the FAR 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns clause. This evaluation will be of the information submitted in response to the RFP. Section L.D.Vol II.6 states “on the contract(s) submitted in Volume III, Past Performance, include relevant information in the RFP Attachment 5 concerning the offeror’s/joint venture member’s compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns if this clause is or was contained in the contract…address whether or not the offeror/joint venture member awarded subcontracts to small business concerns….to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. If none of the submitted contracts included these clauses, whenever subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member’s policy to utilize small business concerns.” Likewise, Section M.II.D.Vol II.6 states, “Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ (compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns,. That is, on the up to three (3) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.”

13. Question: The PWS has references to a Technical Data Package (TDP), Critical Design Review (e.g., see PWS 4.3 – “The contractor shall develop/produce/maintain and deliver a Technical Data Package (TDP) that accurately depicts the final product.”) and an In-Process Review (IPR) (see PWS 4.6). What is the product for which a TDP, CDR and IPR are expected and which CLIN should capture those costs?

Answer: The products which will require a TDP, IPR, and CDR as noted in PWS paragraphs 4.3 and 4.6 which include updates to existing drawings of HUMS equipment or HUMS installations for which the USAF requires modifications.

Labor for these drawing modifications is anticipated under each of the following CLINs:

CLIN X001 - Engineering Services HH-60 (ACC) CLIN X002 - HH-60 Engineering Services (AFRC) CLIN X003 - HH-60 Engineering Services (ANG) CLIN X004 - TH-1H Engineering Services (AETC) CLIN X005 - MH-139 Engineering Services (AFGSC) CLIN X006 - UH-1N Engineering Services (AFGSC)

14. Question: The evaluation factors identified in RFP Section M prioritize technical, and state that this will be a “best value award decision.” However, the evaluation gating process begins with selecting the lowest 3 total proposed price (TPP) offers before any technical evaluation. We are concerned that offerors with limited experience in CBM+/HUMS may not fully understand the technical aspects of this program and therefore estimate unrealistically low.

Answer: The note in Section M.II.A.3. states, “the Government reserves the right to reopen the Gating process at any stage to ensure a reasonable pool of offerors is presented to the SSA for an award decision.” That same section also states “[u]pon the conclusion of any gate’s evaluations, if the number of offerors identified as meeting the exit criteria for that gate is determined to not be a reasonable pool of offerors, the Government reserves the right to “reach back” to previous gates to continue discussions with offerors to bring them forward.” This gating method ensures that a best value award decision is made in accordance with Section M.I.A.

15. Question: How will cost realism be applied such that an unfair advantage is not provided to inexperienced offerors?

Answer: Every offeror’s proposal will be evaluated using the same evaluation criteria. Per Section M.II.D.Vol IV.1.C, the Government will independently review and evaluate “specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offeror’s technical proposal. The burden of proof for cost realism rests with the offeror. Accordingly, proposals will be evaluated to assess the likelihood that the proposed technical and managerial approach can successfully accomplish the SOW at the competitively proposed cost for cost type CLINs.”

16. Question: Reference Attachment 9, the Cost Model, and the RFP CLIN structure, how should program management, CDRL, and other non-engineering labor costs be captured?

Answer: Please review the table in Section L.II.E.Vol IV.1(h)(i), “Table 1 - CLIN and Profit/Fee Structure,” which contains each CLIN and its structure. Section L.II.E.Vol IV.1(h) Cost or Pricing Data Requirements states, “the Offeror’s cost proposal shall contain the proposed rates and/or add-on factors to the Government for performing the work described in the PWS and the attached CDRLs.”