Responses_to_RFP_Questions_6-19-2015.pdf

Number RFP Section Question Response

CONECT SSDD 4.c.(2) ‐ bidder's data library

PWS, APPENDIX 8 B‐

52 TS 1760 IWBU,

Incr 1.1

REQUIREMENTS

4.2.2

Reference: B‐52 Combat Network Communications Technology (CONECT) System/Subsystem Design Description (SSDD) System Architecture Design paragraph 4.c.(2) states "Interface Unit/Global Positioning System (IU/GPS). The IU/GPS provides GPS position data for situation awareness display when the OAS is unable to provide navigation data." Modifications to the IU software are required to provide GPS position data to CONECT.

The WST Flight Systems Station (FSS) IFF Control Page Multi‐Function Display (MFD) is driven by the IU/GPS. The FSS MFD host, which displays information relating to the Global Positioning System/Tactical Air Navigation, shall be modified to support the display of information on the state of the munitions that are simulated within the internal weapons bay.

Question: Please verify that the government has rights to IU/GPS source code for use on the B‐52 training system in support of all three major modifications.

The government does not have rights to IU/GPS source code for use on the B‐52 training system in support of all three major modifications.

All GFP available will be transferred to the contractor IAW the PWS

PWS, APPENDIX 6

paragraph 4.3.1.2.1

Please provide the GFI availability date of the OLS source code for the CIMS, Crew Workstation and File Server Unit.

The government does not have rights to OLS source code for the CIMS, Crew Workstation and File Server Unit.

All GFP available will be transferred to the contractor IAW the PWS

PWS, Section 4.1 In addition to the information provided in the bidders library, please provide the list of design data for major modifications that bidders will receive from the Government after contract award, and expected delivery date.

"The government has some level of rights to all of the information in the existing Bidders Library. Associate Contractor Agreements may be required via the contract for the training system contractor to gain access to other CONECT data."

The Government anticipates all other proprietary data should be available to the contractor for the development after contract award through an established ACA. Contractor shall assume only limited data rights to the CONECT LRU hardware and software design data.

All GFP available will be transferred to the contractor IAW the PWS

PWS, APPENDIX 6

paragraph 4.2.1.1.1

Reference: PWS, APPENDIX 6 4.2.1.1.1 states "During independent mode operations, each station’s IOS shall provide for role playing in order to mimic external entities communicating with the aircraft and other station’s CONECT transmissions, data and messages."

Question: Is it the Government's intent to implement the following capabilities at the IOS station? If not, please clarify what are the "other stations" of the PWS requirement.

1. IOS shall provide the ability to role play in order to mimic external entities communicating with the aircraft.

2. IOS shall provide the ability to role play in order to mimic other station’s CONECT transmissions, data and messages. Is the following an example of the capability: the flight instructor in independent mode can role play the CONECT actions of the Electronic Warfare Officer.

It is the Government's intent to implement the capabilities noted at the IOS station including;

1. In Independent Mode each IOS will be capable of composing and sending messages and other transmissions that would normally come from sources outside the aircraft (i.e.: JTAC, Other aircraft or Other controlling agencies.)

2. When in Independent Mode the IOS must be capable of and the console operator would provide the inputs, responses or other feedback/ reactions to messages and data that would normally be coming form the other crew positions on the aircraft. (i.e.: the pilots should see on their MFCDs inputs that would be made by the navigators, even though the navigators are not connected to the flight station in Independent mode.

PWS, APPENDIX 6

paragraph 4.3.1.2.1

Reference: PWS APPENDIX 6 paragraph 4.3.1.2.1 states "the CW shall run the OLS software in the WST and OSMT."

B‐52 Training System Face to Face meeting November 2014, the Government stated that the CONECT Operational Load Set would be provided under a simulation support contract the government has with the aircraft prime.

Question: Please provide the delivery date for ARINC‐610 modified OLS to support the functionality and malfunctions identified in the CONECT PWS including but not limited to Attachment D ‐ Malfunction and System Message Prioritization.

No date is available at this time nor is a guarantee of any delivery. All GFP available will be transferred to the contractor IAW the

PWS.

Section L, Page 16, Section 5.1, Par 3

Will the Government evaluate Past Performance Questionnaires for programs that are not included in the Past Performance Volume.

Yes. In Section L, Paragraph 5.1, Page 16, the government requests "...the Offeror send the PPQ (Appendix L‐3) directly to customers that could provide relevant past performance information." There is no restriction linking this request to the requirement of "no more than 5 contracts" (Section L, Paragraph 5.1, Page 15). Offerors are reminded that, as per Section M, Paragraph 2.3.2.1, Page 10, the government will conduct a Recency evaluation on all Past Performance information and, to be considered recent, information provided must be related to efforts that are "...active or must have been completed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation."

Section L, para.

4.2.3.1, Is the Integrated Master Plan required for Subfactor 1 ‐ Program Management included in the page count. As stated in 4.2.3.4.3 of section L "Note: IMP and IMS WILL NOT count towards page limit."

Section L, para.

4.2.3.1.1, 4.2.3.4.3

Reference:(4.2.3.1.1)"The offeror shall provide a detailed, comprehensive Integrated Master Plan (IMP) for all aspects of the proposal."

(4.2.3.4.3) "The offeror shall provide a detailed IMP and an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for the CONECT upgrade only" Question: Is the interpretation of not needing to submit a corresponding detailed IMS for para 4.2.3.1.1 correct?

Correct, Section L paragraph 4.2.3.1.1 has no requirement to submit an IMS. However, as stated Section L paragraph 4.2.3.4.3 has a requirement to submit both an IMP and an IMS for CONECT.

Section L, para. 3.1 Reference: "The offeror shall provide documented evidence that they currently hold a valid U.S. Facility Security Clearance of TOP SECRET (Draft DD Form 254, Section 1,a.) and storage capability at the Secret level (Draft DD Form 254, Section 1,b.) as part of their proposal submission" Question: Is a current Facility Security Clearance required prior to proposing for this solicitation?

As stated in Section M 1.9 "Offerors must have a valid U.S. Facility Security Clearance of Top Secret (Draft DD Form 254, Section 1.a.)

and storage capability at the Secret level (Draft DD Form 254, Section 1.b.) in order to be eligible for contract award. Offerors shall submit evidence of clearance levels at proposal submission. Offerors who fail to supply evidence of clearance levels by proposal submission may be deemed ineligible for award."

Section L, para. 3.1 Question: If an Offeror does not hold a TS facility clearance would the subcontractor's TS clearance suffice until the Offeror receives their TS facility clearance.

IAW the DD254 and DoD 5220.22M the prime contractor must hold a TS facility clearance. Subcontractor clearances are not sufficient.

Section L, Table 2.3, and para. 5.1 Reference: Table 2.3 Proposal Organization instructs the offeror to limit page count for Volume III Past Performance to 35 pages. Section

5.2 (last sentence in first paragraph) states "The Business Relationships page generated from the PPI Tool is counted within the Introductory Information in the Past Performance Volume" Question: After allocating 25 pages for no more than five contracts and five pages for organizational changes, is it the Government's intent to allow offerors to use the remaining five pages for introductory information (including the Business Relationships page from the PPI Tool)?

There is no minimum number of pages the Offeror is required to submit. The government allots a maximum of 35 pages Volume 3 as per Section L, Table 2.3. Assuming the Offeror uses 25 pages for information related to the 5 requested contracts and 5 pages to explain organizational changes, 5 pages remain. Content provided in the pages remaining after the required Business Relationships page shall be used to deliver Introductory Information and is left to the judgment of the Offeror but must include only information pertinent to the evaluation of past performance. Data supplied in this section that should be placed in other volumes of the Offerors submission, such as details on proposed plans for the other sub‐factors, will not be evaluated.

PWS, para. 2.1.25

Is the Government mandating a new Inventory Control System (ICS) to replace Trakland? If the existing ICS can be made to fulfill all PWS requirements, would that be acceptable?

As stated in section M 1.4 " 1.4 By submission of its offer, the offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors."

PWS section 2.1.25 discusses Inventory Control. The following statements are made "The new inventory control system shall be in place at the end of the Initial Contract Transition (see PWS Paragraph 6.1.1)." and "The Contractor shall import and/or convert the existing inventory control system (A.K.A. Trakland) database, including historical data into the Contractor’s web‐based inventory control system, and provide an orderly backup and shutdown of the Trakland system."

Instruction Tab in File "Atch 3 ‐ B52 TS Price Matrix 28 May 2015"

Reference: The Tab "Instruction" refers to a tab called "CLIN Summary Page" and suggests "The CLIN Summary Page requires no contractor inputs but provides a full list of the CLINs." This tab was in the draft version but has not been included in the final. The protected nature of the file inhibits an ability to develop a consolidated pricing summary for the program.

Question: Could this tab be included in order for an ability to review consolidated pricing?

Reference to CLIN summary TAB will be removed from Instructions.

Atch 3 ‐ B52 TS Price Matrix 28 May 2015 Reference: The identified pricing file is password protected allowing entries only in the unprotected yellow cells. The rest of the spreadsheet is protected allowing no entries. Section 6.1.2 of L "Organization of Pricing Data" requests that "estimates will track to your proposed price in the contract.

Question: Request clarification of what and how the government desires presentation of the supporting data, i.e., in the narrative of the pricing volume word document only?

As stated in section L 6.1.5 "In accordance with FAR 15.403‐1(b) and 15.403‐3(a), information other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness and/or realism. Information shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.403‐ 5." Rate information should be included IAW Section L 6.2.3

Tab "CLS" Atch 3 ‐ B52 TS Price Matrix 28 May 2015

Reference: In the pricing file Tab "CLS" when you try to enter data in the yellow cells based on direction for Contractor Input the following notice comes up: "The cell you are trying to change is protected and therefore read‐only."

Question: Is it the Government's intention to allow bidders to input data into these cells.

Yes, Cells will be unlocked in amended RFP.

Tab "Studies" of Atch 3 ‐ B52 TS Price Matrix 28 May 2015

Reference: Tab "Studies" requires input in a FFP format for a series of anticipated studies. Information on the content required for the study in section 2.1.16 of the PWS is unspecific in identifying the level of detail expected. For instance, in sections 2.1.16.1, 2.1.16.2, 2.1.16.3, 2.1.16.4 it requests "The Contractor shall use a phased approach and form a Government/Contractor working group to identify existing and emerging deficiencies, develop user requirements, define potential solutions."

Question: Is the ROM Cost Estimate expected to include associated costs for this non‐specific group of participating personnel and related travel?

The ROM Cost Estimate(s) expected would include all associated contractor costs which would include participating personnel and related travel. Government working group personnel travel and associated cost should not be included.

Tab "Travel and Materials" of Atch 3 ‐ B52 TS Price Matrix 28 May 2015

Are the calculations for the Travel and Material Tab in the Price Matrix included in the total evaluated price. The total evaluated price will calculated as stated in section M 2.4.2.

Tab "Studies" of Atch 3 ‐ B52 TS Price Matrix 28 May 2015 If the Offeror's travel and material price are less than the Government estimate is the Offeror allowed to insert a negative value.

No, the Offeror will not be allowed to insert a negative value.

As stated in Section M 2.4.6 "The Government has provided a cost estimate for each of the identified CLINs as a way to apply the proposed rate to calculate a total price for each CLIN."

Tab "TSSC Surge" of Atch 3 ‐ B52 TS Price Matrix 28 May 2015

Tab "TSSC Surge" includes the heading B‐52 "Training System TSSC / DMO Surge" in the top left hand corner of the tab content. Could you clarify whether the categories expected for surge include all TSSC and TSSC DMO categories and/or is just related to DMO type of activities only and/or would be a subset of those categories identified in the TSSC and TSSC DMO tab.

All categories (which includes all TSSC and TSSC DMO categories) are expected for surge

Tab "TSSC Surge" of Atch 3 ‐ B52 TS Price Matrix 28 May 2015

Tabs "CLS Surge" and "TSSC Surge" request pricing for surge personnel. PWS and Solicitation sections provide information on processes to support its request. Section 4.3.10 of the PWS suggests "The amount to be expended each year will depend on the number of taskings and available funding." Is there available historical information and/or any parameters on ceilings and/or Govt. estimates to best plan and price for onsite and or reachback personnel to meet the demand?

No history is available on CLS and TSSC surge. The government anticipates these CLINs will be exercised infrequently.

M.2.2.3.2, 2.4.2 / L.4.2.3.3.2 / PWS 3.4, 4.3, 4.3.9 We note that the B‐52 WST Federate System Test Plan for Mission Package 13, dated 21 July 2014, is included in the Data Library. Section

5 of that document indicates that testing was to occur in January 2015. This information conflicts with information in Section L 4.2.3.3.2 regarding the path to achieve Mission Package (MP) 15: "This includes MP10 and 11 in the base year; MP12 and 13 in Option Year 1; and MP14 and 15 in Option Year 2." In order to determine the scope of work and schedule for upgrade to DMO Mission Package 15, as required by Section L 4.2.3.3.2, we need to establish both the starting condition and the completion criteria. Please confirm that the on‐ going upgrade of the WST to Mission Package 13 will be completed by contract turn‐over. To establish the starting condition, please provide the Design Criteria data for MP13 (the 12 applicable DMO standards). For us to scope the upgrade to MP15, please provide the DMO Standards for MP14 and MP15. If MP 10, 11 and 12 have not been accomplished, please include the DMO standards for those Mission Packages as well.

MP 13 will not be completed by contract turnover. The title FSTP in the Data Library refers to the current upgrade being worked on which includes all of MP 9 and parts of MP 10 through MP 13.

As stated in Section L 4.2.3.3.2 the contractor will be evaluated on their approach to completing all parts of MP 10 ‐ 15 and evaluated in section M 2.2.3.2. Which includes any work / rework of the then current baseline.

DMO standards for MP 10 through MP 15 are part of the bidder's library.

L.4.2.3.3.1 / PWS 2.2.7 There are no Database Generation System (DBGS) User's Guides for either the Radar or Visual in the bidders library. Is it possible to have them added?

All data available is part of the bidders library.

N/A In the provided reports that are in the Bidders Library, there is very little information provided as far as “parts used” to repair the devices. Are there any other reports available that would include information for the number of items utilized that the Government would have available to provide the needed information?

All data available is part of the bidders library.

L.5.0

Section L states, "The Business Relationships page generated from the PPI Tool is counted within the Introductory Information in the Past Performance Volume." However, the introductory section is not mentioned again. Since the Past Performance Volume is a highly‐ evaluated volume, will the Government permit an introduction section of two pages for the Past Performance volume?

The government allots a maximum of 35 pages Volume 3 as per Section L, Table 2.3. Assuming the Offeror uses 25 pages for information related to the 5 requested contracts and 5 pages to explain organizational changes, 5 pages remain. Content provided in the pages remaining after the required Business Relationships page shall be used to deliver Introductory Information and is left to the judgment of the Offeror but must include only information pertinent to the evaluation of past performance. Data supplied in this section that should be placed in other volumes of the Offerors submission, such as details on proposed plans for the other sub‐ factors, will not be evaluated. Finally, please note that the government places an upper limit of 35 pages for the entire Volume III submission. There is no minimum number of pages the Offeror is required to submit.

PWS 6.1.2.6

We are aware that there were issues with SIL relocation on the current contract, and ask the following questions to avoid any such complications on this transition.

1) To be perfectly clear, please confirm that the intent of this PWS section is that the incumbent contractor has no responsibilities for SIL discrepancies deferred from pre‐relocation inspection, or discovered after the move, whether they were pre‐existing, or not.

2) Will the incoming contractor be allowed input regarding the scope and thoroughness of pre‐relocation testing of the SIL?

1. The Government is currently planning on conducting the pre‐relocation testing and document discrepancies noted. Prior to teardown the outgoing contractor will have the opportunity to address each discrepancy and come to an agreeable course of action.

2. The incoming contractor will be advised as to the condition of the SIL prior to teardown and will be responsible for any discrepancies found during the post assembly testing that were not identified at pre‐relocation testing. All other discrepancies will become part of the TSSC discrepancy process.

Attachment 3 ‐ Price Matrix The yellow highlighted cells are locked and data cannot be inserted. We request the Government unlock the yellow highlighted cells. Yellow cells will be unlocked in amended RFP.

Attachment 3 ‐ Price Matrix; L.6.1.8

In Section L.6.1.8 the RFP states "The Offeror shall provide base and fully‐burdened labor rates for TSSC Labor (CLINs 0007 – 7007), TSSC Surge CLINs (CLINs 0009 – 7009) and TSSC DMO Labor (CLINs 0011 – 7011). A rate must be proposed for all labor categories. A “no bid” or omitted rate may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation."

In Attachment 3 ‐ Price Matrix, the instructions for TSSC Labor, TSSC Surge and TSSC DMO Labor state to enter the full list of staff that will support the TSSC by entering the labor position in the labor category column by exempt and non‐exempt.

Are offerors to propose a rate for all 54 labor categories in the "Resource Definitions" tab or only propose labor categories from the "Resource Definitions" tab where offerors will be applying FTEs/Hours?

Offerors should propose a rate for all 54 labor categories in the "Resource Definitions"

Attachment 3 ‐ Price Matrix In the spreadsheets, there are 29 lines for Exempt and 30 lines for Non‐Exempt, but these spreadsheets are locked so that no additional lines can be added. If offerors are to propose all 54 labor categories from the "Resource Definitions" tab, an offeror may define, for example, 31 out of the 54 labor categories to be Exempt but will not be able to enter all 31 Exempt labor categories into the Exempt section since the spreadsheet is locked. We request that the Government provide additional lines for both Exempt and Non‐Exempt.

Additional lines will be available in the amended RFP

Attachment 3 ‐ Price Matrix At the top of the spreadsheet, the Option Years are not aligned correctly with the CLIN numbers. For example, CLIN 1007 states Option

Year 2 when it should state Option Year 1. We request that the Government correct the correlation between CLINs and Option Years.

Option Years will be corrected in the amended RFP

Attachment 3 ‐ Price Matrix At the top of the spreadsheet, the Option Years are not aligned correctly with the CLIN numbers. For example, CLIN 0009 states Option

Year 1 when it should state Base Period. We request that the Government correct the correlation between CLINs and Years.

Option Years will be corrected in the amended RFP

Section B;

Attachment 3 ‐ Price Matrix

For CLINs 0018‐0021 and 0030‐0040, at the end of each CLIN title, there is a "OP‐1" which we assume means Option Period 1. In the CLIN description, it states these Optional CLINs may be exercised through December 31, 2016 which is the last day of the Base Period. We request that "OP‐1" be replaced with a title that references the Base Period since the CLINs can be exercised within the period of performance for the Base Period.

CLINs 0018‐0021 and 0030‐0040 are exercisable prior to the first exercisable CLS and TSSC period. (For example, they could be exercised at the same time as the transition CLIN.) Therefore, they have been designated Option Periods. Consequently, the Government is not contemplating changes of this type at this time.

Attachment 3 ‐ Price Matrix CLIN 7010 states a quantity of 13 months. We request the Government to update the quantity to reflect 12 months. CLIN 7010 quantity will be corrected to 12 months on the amended RFP

Attachment 3 ‐ Price Matrix

Labor category number 45 and 51 have the same labor category title "Supply Technician" but different descriptions and qualifications.

We request that one of the labor category titles is altered.

Title will be revised in the amended RFP

Attachment 3 ‐ Price Matrix It is our interpretation that the language of CLIN X006 CLS Materials indicates that the cost of RSP maintenance (repair, replace) and CLS

"Other Direct Costs" (material, services, consumables, shipping, etc.) must be included in the other CLS CLINs (X002, X003). Please confirm that CLIN X006 is for CLS materials that are beyond the scope of CLINs X002 and X003.

PWS Section 2.1.5 states “A Material Cost expense for the purposes of this contract is defined as one which is an expense that is not included in any other effort (e.g., Program Management or CLS).”

Attachment 3 ‐ Price Matrix In the CLS Surge tab, hourly rates are requested for each device. If a device requires multiple labor categories for execution, does the

Government want offerors to propose one (1) blended rate per device?

As outlined in the CLS Surge tab the Government wants offerors to propose hourly rates to provide a fully operational device, in any configuration / mode for each category. Appropriate staffing for each device is the contractor's responsibility and should be accounted for in their proposed price.

Section L.6.1.9 In Section L.6.1.9 the RFP states, "For CBA and WD wages, all contract base labor rates shall be proposed using the most current revisions for the base year.” However, it appears the current CBA expires on 12/31/2015. Please confirm that the offeror should use the rates found in the column headed 1/1/2015 under Article 10, page 9 of the current CBA for pricing.

Should the contractor not have an executed, then current year CBA in place, WD wages for all SCA labor categories would be verified by the government IAW Service Contract Labor Standards.

Section L 4.1, 4.2.3;

Atchm_12_Appendix _L‐ 6_Proposal_Traceabi lity_Matrix

Section L 4.1 (page 11) states: "By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal." For clarity, is it correct that bidders proposals are not required to respond to PWS items, listed in Appendix L‐6 Proposal Traceability Matrix, unless a reference to Section L or M appears in conjunction with the PWS entry in the spreadsheet? For instance, PWS Section 6.2.5 CLS Office Equipment/Furniture does not have a Section L or M reference on L‐6; therefore, a formal response is not required for such sections. Is this correct?

Yes this is correct.

Section L.3.2

We understand that the table of contents for the volumes are out of page count. However, with Volume I ‐ Executive Summary being limited to 10 pages, may the Master Table of Contents of the entire proposal that is required in Volume I also be removed from page count?

As stated in Section L 2.3.5 Indexing "The Cover page, PTM, a dedicated Definitions section, Table of Contents, Table of Tables, and Table of Figures pages DO NOT count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

This includes Section L item 3.2 Table of Contents which requests a master table of contents.

Atchm_12_Appendix _L‐ 6_Proposal_Traceabi lity_Matrix

According to Attachment 6 – Proposal Traceability Matrix, PWS areas 3.12, 3.12.1, and 3.12.2 for Recompetition Support Package are aligned with Sections L.4.2.3.2.2 and M.2.2.2.2, which deals with obsolescence and DMS/MS. 3.12, 3.12.1, and 3.12.2 would be better aligned with Sections L.4.2.3.2.1 and M.2.2.2.1, which deals with approach for CLS. Would the Government consider moving the 3.12 requirement to align with L.4.2.3.2.1 and M.2.2.2.1?

The Government is not considering changes of this type at this time.

Q&A 9 Feb 2015 Question #20 In response to Question #20 "Will the government be releasing any other information (white papers / studies, etc.) regarding the priced options (CONECT, IFF, 1760)?", the Government responded: "The government has taken this request under consideration and will review any documentation available for release. (subject to government data rights to the information)". We have not seen any such information added to the Data Library.

It is clear from the previous solicitation that CONECT was a planned ECP for the current contract. If studies were conducted and reports or ECPs generated at the direction of the Government for CONECT, IFF or IWBU mods, those documents and cost estimates (less contractor rate information) should be included in the Data Library for this competition, as such information would provide valuable insight, and level the bidders knowledge with the incumbent contractor.

All data available is part of the bidders library.

Q&A 9 Feb 2015 Question #21

Reference Government response to 9 Feb Question #21: "Spares are anticipated for the priced options and will be evaluated in the TEP under the priced option CLINs." For development efforts such as the priced option modifications, spares are generally not included in the original proposal, as the design is preliminary and specific spareable components are tentative. We note that the model contract includes CDRL A011 Proposed Spare Parts List. Is it correct to assume that the spares for the modifications would be developed during the modification effort and submitted for approval through A011, with funding of the approved list through a CCP? Thus, spares cost are not required with the initial proposal submittal, and would not be in the TEP.

Proposed Spare Parts List (CDRL A011) is for ongoing items and should not be relied upon as part of priced option proposal submission.

Section L 4.2.3.4 states "At a minimum, the Trainer Modifications approach shall demonstrate technical understanding of the requirements, trainer operations, and deliverables. The technical proposal shall address the entire modification cycle IAW the PWS including design, development, reviews, testing, manufacturing, delivery schedule, installation, integration, and sustainment." as a part of sustainment and, as previously stated, "Spares are anticipated for the priced options and will be evaluated in the TEP under the priced option CLINs."

Further, please note that Section L 4.2.3.4.5 States "No component Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) will be provided for the three trainer modification priced options (CONECT, IFF, and 1760) and offerors shall not include GFE requirements for these priced options as part of their proposal. Request for GFE for the modifications will cause the offeror’s proposal to be non‐compliant with the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal and may render the proposal ineligible for award." This includes spares.

Section B, CLINs

X007 & X011; PWS

4.3, 4.3.11 We have separate CLINs and funding for the basic TSSC and the DMO TSSC. Therefore, staffing FTE and skill mix is proposed separately.

CLIN X007 for the basic TSSC references PWS 4.3, which encompasses the full scope of TSSC responsibilities, including the subparagraph defining DMO responsibilities; CLIN X011 for the DMO TSSC references PWS 4.3.11, which addresses all aspects of DMO responsibilities.

However, CLIN X011 also references PWS 4.3, including the broader scope.

1) Is it correct to assume that if the DMO specific responsibilities under 4.3.11 are being met, it is within the purview of the TSSC Manager to assign DMO TSSC personnel who are not otherwise fully occupied with DMO tasks, to TSSC projects which are not directly related to DMO, with, of course, the concurrence of the Government Contractor Officer's Representative (COR)?

2) Clearly the DMO TSSC will rely upon the basic TSSC for core functions such as CM, DM, QA/Test, Security, admin, etc. So, is it also within the purview of the TSSC Manager, with COR concurrence, to assign basic TSSC technical staff to augment the DMO TSSC staff on DMO related tasks when circumstances (peak DMO tasking, unplanned absence, etc.) warrant?

While it is correct to assume TSSC and DMO staff may be able to be utilized for both functions, it is important to note that Factor 1, Subfactor 3 will be evaluating TSSC and DMO tasks. The offeror is cautioned that they should not anticipate a surge situation due to a lack in contractor proposed manpower for the requirements defined in the solicitation.

PWS 3.2

Section B, CLINs X004, X005 & X009;

Section H 006, 007

Surge will generally be performed with existing CLS and TSSC staff, which would require that overtime pay be included in the proposed rates.

1) Will the Government consider the overtime requirement in evaluating the realism of proposed Surge rates?

2) Will Surge be included in the TEP?

The government will evaluate rates as stated in Section M. As stated in section M the TEP is not being disclosed to the offerors.

PWS 3.12.2

We believe that PWS 3.12.2 should reference CDRL A011 Proposed Spare Parts List. Please confirm this assumption. This is an incorrect assumption. Adjustments to the RSP would be reported under 3.12.1 "RSP Maintenance"

PWS 4.3, 2.0

The first sentence of PWS 4.3 states: "Management tasks outlined in PWS Section 2.0 shall be applicable to this Section." This is a very broad statement which could be interpreted as imposing all subparagraphs of PWS 2.0 upon the TSSC, which is inconsistent, because many subsections define responsibilities which are applicable only to the Program Office, modifications, or CLS. The sentence could be deleted, or revised to be more specific (e.g.: Management tasks outlined in PWS Sections 2.1.10, 2.1.11, 2.1.12, 2.1.13, 2.1.21, 2.1.23, 2.1.26, 2.2.3 (except 2.2.3.1 and 2.2.3.2), 2.2.4, 2.2.5 (except 2.2.5.3), 2.2.6, 2.2.7 (except 2.2.7.2), 2.2.8.8, 2.2.8.9, 2.2.8.10, and 2.2.9 shal be applicable to this Section.)

The Government is not considering changes of this type at this time.

PWS 4.3.12

PWS 4.3.12 states: "The Contractor shall update the BSB Operational Load Set software and integrate it into the WST Offensive Avionic System (OAS). The OAS shall operate on the WST as it would in the aircraft without any adverse effects on current trainer operations." It is our understanding that updates to the Operational Flight Programs (OFP) for the OAS are received from the Government (B‐52 lab at Tinker AFB) with the software "hooks" that allow the OAS OFP to support trainer peculiar requirements such as freeze, reset, and position slew.

1) Is it correct to assume that updates to the OAS OFP during this contract will continue to support simulator peculiar functionality?

2) Will the BSB Operational Load Set (OLS) software coming with CONECT similarly support simulator functionality?

3) The architecture of the OLS may be such that no "hooks" are required to support simulator functionality. Please provide the assessment of the Tinker AFB B‐52 lab regarding that question.

4) If simulator "hooks" are required for the OLS to function correctly in the simulators, will OLS source code, documentation, and development tools be made available to the training system contractor in time to support implementation 60 days prior to operational fielding of the OAS and OLS in the aircraft?

1. The Government has no plans to change the OFP simulator provisions delivered from their current functionality.

2. The Government has no plans to include this functionality at this time. The simulator contractor will have to include provision(s) in order for the OFP to work on the simulator and any subsequent update.

3. No Government assessment is available at this time.

4. See answer to item 2 in this question.

Section L 1.1

Under program description, para. 1.1 states: “…and fielding of new ATDs and MTDs, as required;”

Is it the Government’s intent to modify the contract post‐award to address additional / new training devices as an ECP? If so, how should offerors address this requirement in our proposal?

Section L Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 will be updated to remove the reference to New Devices in the amended RFP

Atch_1_PWS TOC

TOC references Section 5 “New Device(s)”, however Section 5 of the PWS is ‘Reserved’. The requirements in the PWS are inconsistent with Section L para 1.1 which describes “fielding of new ATDs and MTDs, as required;”

Will the Government revise the PWS prior to proposal submission and provide additional requirements for new devices? If so, how does the Government want offerors to address these requirements in their proposal? What criteria will be used for evaluation?

TOC reference to New Device(s) will be removed in the amended RFP

Atch_1_PWS 2.1.10.2

Are the ATDs to be modified under this contract compliant with the following Cybersecurity requirements?

• DoDI 8500.01

• DoDI 8510.01

• Air Force Instruction (AFI) 33‐200

• AFI 33‐210

If not do these Cybersecurity requirements only apply to the new work being performed on this contract?

Training program currently holds an Authority to Operate (ATO) which are based upon the requirements outline in the regulations.

As stated in PWS 2.1.10.2 Cybersecurity requirements are to be addressed at all times to include new work efforts.

Atch_1_PWS Appendix 6 4.3.1.2.1

CW Operational Load Set (OLS) Software The system shall run the OLS software in the WST and OSMT, including the execution of other mission support software required to display mission re‐tasking data during all WST modes and OSMT operation.

Does the Government require the contractor to run the aircraft CW OLS software/operational flight program in the ATDs?

Yes, the Government does require the contractor to run the aircraft CW OLS software/operational flight program in the ATDs

Atch_1_PWS Appendix 6

4.3.1.6

Removable Storage Device (RSD) The Upgrade shall provide RSDs with CIMS OLS software and predetermined mission data in the WST and OSMT for both the crew and Contractor personnel to load in an FSU.

Does the Government require the contractor to run the aircraft CIMS OLS software/operational flight program in the ATDs?

Yes, the Government does require the contractor to run the aircraft CIMS OLS software/operational flight program in the ATDs.

Atch_1_PWS 6.1.2 What are the facility classification requirements for the SIL?

Offerors must comply with the Draft DD Form 254, that states offerors must have a valid U.S. Facility Security Clearance of Top Secret (Draft DD Form 254, Section 1.a.) and storage capability at the Secret level (Draft DD Form 254, Section 1.b.)

The SIL classification requirements will be dependent upon the offeror's proposed work to be performed at the SIL.

Attachment 1 PWS Paragraph 2.2.8 (Test & Evaluation)

Subparagraphs 2.2.8.3 through 2.2.8.6 define the requirements for in‐plant testing and the sequence. Subparagraph 2.2.8.4.3 (System Verification Review) states that an SVR will be conducted in‐plant following the completion of CEVT and a “final SVR on‐site” will be conducted after the completion of System Performance Evaluation (SPE).

Subparagraphs 2.2.8.7 through 2.2.8.8 define the requirements for on‐site testing and the sequence. On‐site and production testing does not include SPE.

QUESTION‐ Is there a Final SVR required on‐site and if so, where in the sequence of site events is it to be performed?

The on‐site RFT determination is the decision point for the on‐site installation of the modification. That is where it will be determined whether the requirements of the specification has been met.

54 CDRLs

All CDRLs qualify that deliveries are to be made in accordance with working days or in accordance with calendar days with the following exceptions.

a. A011 states the contractor will notify the Government when it is available for delivery.

b. A013 states the contractor will notify the Government when it is available for delivery.

c. A014 states the contractor will notify the Government when it is available for delivery.

d. A015 states the contractor will notify the Government when it is available for delivery.

e. A016 states the contractor will notify the Government when it is available for delivery.

f. A017 states the contractor will notify the Government when it is available for delivery.

g. A018 states the contractor will notify the Government when it is available for delivery.

h. A031 states the contractor will notify the Government when it is available for delivery.

i. A033 states the contractor will notify the Government when it is available for delivery.

j. A036 states the contractor will notify the Government when it is available for delivery.

k. A041 states the contractor will notify the Government when it is available for delivery.

l. A043 states the contractor will notify the Government when it is available for delivery.

m. A048 states the contractor will notify the Government when it is available for delivery.

QUESTION‐ Are there any delivery limits on these CDRLs or should the Contractor recommend delivery criteria?

n. A001 states “30 days”

o. A046 states the final submittal is due “30 days”

QUESTION‐ Are these calendar day or work day delivery requirements?

1) Many of the CDRLs cited are event driven, as noted in Block 13 of most of the CDRls identified the deliveries are "as required".

There are no delivery limits on the CDRLs.

2) As stated on pg 4 of exhibit A Delivery Dates are as follows "In the event a CDRL delivery date falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the delivery will be made by Friday to be counted as an on‐time delivery. Unless otherwise specified in Block 16 of the CDRL, all references to “days” will refer to calendar days."

55 Section L paragraph 4.2.3.1.1 states “The offer shall provide a detailed, comprehensive Integrated Master Plan (IMP) for all aspects of the proposal”.

Section L paragraph 4.2.3.4.1 states the offeror shall include “individual schedules for the government defined upgrades (CONECT, IFF, and IWBU) upgrades”.

Section L paragraph 4.2.3.4.3 states “The Offeror shall provide a detailed IMP and an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for the CONECT upgrade only…”.

a. QUESTION‐ Please clarify the IMP, IMS and Schedule proposal requirements for the upgrades and the full program, as well as the corresponding Section M evaluation criteria.

b. QUESTION‐ Can the IMP be a file (Excel) separate from the IMS (MS Project) with a cross reference in each file aligning the IMP events, accomplishment and criteria with specific tasks in the IMS?

c. QUESTION‐ While the IMP / IMS is required “for the CONECT upgrade only”, does this mean that the IMSs for the other modifications are to be in separate IMSs or can these be integrated into a single program IMS with IMP relationships only to the CONECT portion of the

IMS?

d. QUESTION‐ Section M paragraph 2.2.4.3 MoM #3 identifies that the government will evaluate the development and production schedule for all CONECT required upgrades. Will the Government evaluate the “individual schedules” for the other two upgrades as part of Section M, 2.2.4.1?

e. Can MoM #1 be exceeded (assessed to contain strength(s)) when the offeror proposes credible separate development and production schedules for these two upgrades that result in delivering capability to the field sooner than required?

a. An overall IMP is required for the entire contract IAW Section L 4.2.3.1.1.

An IMP for the CONECT upgrade, which is a part of the overall IMP, should be submitted as part of the offeror's submission in response to paragraph 4.2.3.4.1.

Several schedules are required, including schedules for each of the upgrades. Sect. L, 4.2.3.4.1 describes the content expected for the upgrades. Only the CONECT upgrade requires an IMS.

b. Yes, Please note cross referencing limitations outlined in section L 2.3.4

c. While the contract requires an overall IMS, Ref. PWS 2.1.2; only a CONECT IMS and individual schedules are required for government evaluation of proposals IAW Section L 4.2.3.4.3. Individual schedules, which can be formatted as the offeror chooses, include: contract transition, BSB upgrades, 1760 IWBU upgrade, IFF Mode S/5 upgrade, SIL Transition, etc.

d. As a part of the offeror's proposal submission IAW Section L 4.2.3.4.1 the Government will evaluate the modifications IAW Section M 2.2.4.1

e. MoM #1 may be exceeded (assessed to contain strength(s)) when the offeror’s approach identifies innovative planning and scheduling which provides an overall exceptional approach to accomplishing testing for all three upgrades in a manner designed to minimize trainer downtime. (the definition remains the same)

56 CDRL A030

4. CDRL A030 states “the contractor shall deliver the initial submittal no later than 25 calendar days after the close of the Contractor’s first accounting period following award”. Given the size and complexity of the schedule for the B‐52 TS program, it would be difficult to have a fully detailed and integrated IMS and performance measurement baseline established less than 60 days after contract award. Will the government provide a minimum of 60 days after contract award for the first submittal?

The contract requires an overall IMS, IAW PWS 2.1.2. The government has outlined transition periods of 30, 60, 90, 120 days after award and will need insight beginning in the first period. Therefore, the Government is not contemplating changes of this type at this time.

57 CDRL A030

CDRL A030 requests ‘The contactor shall deliver top level cost and schedule summary status ‘Flash Reports’ 7 calendar days after the close of each accounting period. Please provide more details on this requirement as this is not discussed in DID‐MGMT‐81861/T?

Flash reports are discussed in the Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) Implementation guide.

58 CDRL A030

Will a Schedule Risk Assessment (SRA) be required on the IMS under CDRL A030 Integrated Program Management Report (DID Section

3.7.1.3.6 – 3.7.1.3.6.5)? If so, does this apply to the incentive fee efforts only or all CLIN’s? When will SRA’s be required?

As stated in Block 16 of CDRL A030(a) "The submittal shall contain all required data elements identified in the data item." Delivery timeframes are located in the CDRL. As stated in the PWS section 2.1.2 "The Contractor shall create and maintain an overall B‐52 TS Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) to execute all tasks within this PWS."

59 RFP

Section 52.234‐02 of the RFP provides Notice of Earned Value Management System – Pre Award IBR. Is this Clause applicable to this contract given the acquisition timeline and the fact that Clause 52.232‐03 – Post Award IBR is also included?

If it is applicable, is it the Government’s intent to provide funding and conduct a pre‐award IBR for the associated CLIN’s on this program?

Should the Government's evaluation indicate the need for a Pre‐Award IBR the Offeror will be notified.

Attachment 3 – Price Matrix

a. On the CLS tab, a majority of the yellow highlighted contractor input cells are password protected and can’t be modified. Please modify the password protection in the CLS worksheet to allow contractor input.

b. On the TSSC Labor tab, the Total Price column is not wide enough to display the values once contractor inputs are entered. Please provide a revised sheet or allow contractor modification of column widths.

c. Based on Section L, 6.1.9, it appears that the Pricing Matrix should contain another tab that contains CLS Labor Rates that lists labor categories, Base Labor Rates and Fully Burdened Rates for each CY period. Please clarify CLS Labor Rate pricing requirements.

d. TSSC and TSSC DMO tasks may not all be performed on‐site, for example maintenance of the SIL. Should the TSSC and TSSC DMO pricing tabs be revised to annotate personnel located off‐site?

a) Cells will be unlocked and available in the amended RFP b)The column will be widened in the amended RFP

c) CLS rates are by device as shown in the matrix. Offerors will need to provide a summary description of your pricing/methodology and any assumptions used as it pertains to this acquisition and any assumptions used (i.e. manpower requirements, base rates used, fully burdened rates, etc.) IAW section 6.1.1 and 6.1.4.

d) For Labor task that have multiple sites/prices each site should be clearly identified.

61 RFP Section B, CLINs

Section B, CLIN 0002 states “CLIN may be exercised in monthly increments at 1/12 total price….for the range awarded.”

CLIN 1002, 2002, etc. do not contain this language.

While the Pricing Matrix provides a table for selection of CLS support levels by individual device for each contract period, including daily and monthly prices, please clarify how and when the Government will award CLS efforts for each period.

Will the Government select the required level of support for each device and award the CLIN for the entire year period?

If not, what is the process for the Government to change required support levels throughout the year and where is this process defined within the Contract? Is there a 30 to 60 day advance notice of change?

CLS will be awarded in accordance with the contract.

62 RFP Section B, CLINs

Section B, CLINs 0018, 0019, 0020, 0021 and respective Option Year CLINs for these studies – Will the Government allow Progress Payments for these CLINs given their Periods of Performance?

The government has specified payments shall be in accordance with FAR 52.232‐01 for CLINs 0018, 0019, 0020, 0021 and respective Option Year CLINs for the studies.

As a part of 52.232‐01 the clause states "The Government shall pay the Contractor, upon the submission of proper invoices or vouchers, the prices stipulated in this contract for supplies delivered and accepted or services rendered and accepted, less any deductions provided in this contract. Unless otherwise specified in this contract, payment shall be made on partial deliveries accepted by the Government if ‐‐

(a) The amount due on the deliveries warrants it..."

The government may be willing to allow partial payment on CLINs 0018, 0019, 0020, 0021 and respective Option Year CLINs for each of the four deliveries (a. ‐ c.) outlined in CDRL A034 Block 16 (c).

Section B and Pricing Matrix

PWS Section 2.1.5 states “A Material Cost expense for the purposes of this contract is defined as one which is an expense that is not included in any other effort (e.g., Program Management or CLS).”

RFP Section B, CLIN 0006 contains similar text, while CLIN 0010 states “…..not included in any other effort (e.g. Program Management, TSSC or ……CLS”

With Attachment 3 – Price Matrix – The Instructions Tab, under “Travel & Material” states “… Materials needed to support CLS and the TSSC will be paid via COST CLINs as detailed in the Travel & Material Summary tab……”.

The Price Matrix implies that any CLS and TSSC materials costs would be reimbursed under CLINs XX06 and XX10. Please clarify what material expenses should be priced in “any other effort (e.g., Program Management, TSSC, CLS)”, under CLINs XX001 – XX03, XX07.

As stated in PWS section 2.1.5 "The Contractor shall provide all materials and services required to execute this contract, except for those items or services specifically stated to be Government furnished in this PWS." Additionally, the PWS outlines multiple areas the contractor is responsible for proposing material costs as a part of their respective CLIN(s). These include but are not limited to;

PWS 3.11 HAND TOOLS AND PECULIAR SUPPORT EQUIPMENT "The Contractor shall provide all non‐GFE hand tools and Peculiar Support Equipment required to successfully execute this PWS."

PWS 3.12.1 RSP Maintenance "The Contractor shall be responsible for the replenishment, management, calibration/update, maintenance and replacement of the spares and…