Sections_L_and_M_Industry_Day_QAs_(FBO_Posting).docx

C-5 CMC/WXR (PIMA)

SOLICIATION FA8625-18-R-6701

REQUEST FOR PROPOSL,

SECTION L (INSTRUCTIONS)

SECTION M (EVALUATION FACTORS)

INDUSTRY DAY QUESTION & ANSWERS

06 Dec 2017

1. Since this is a Firm Fixed Price effort will paragraph 2.3.5 in Section M be struck?

Answer: No, because we will still have CPFF CLINs for Over & Above work and a Cost Reimbursable with no fee CLIN for Travel.

2. Have you considered using Time & Materials (T&M) for the Over and Above (O&A) work?

Answer: Yes, we have considered that; however, there is currently very strict guidance within the Government when using T&M CLINs. For that reason and also because we believe CPFF is more appropriate for this type of work, we will be using CPFF for the CLIN type for O&A work.

3. As far as risk sharing goes on the O&A work, will we still be in compliance under a CPFF CLIN?

Answer: We do understand that for small businesses they do not need to be CAS compliant but they do still need to have an approved accounting system. Currently we are still learning more about who approves and how, and we will get you that information when we have it.

4. In reference to the letter the Government is asking for from potential Offerors that states they intend to propose to this effort, when is this letter due?

Answer: We would like it to come to us within one week from today.

5. Who is the POC to receive that letter or what is the email address to send it to?

Answer: AFLCMC.WLSK.C5CMCWXR@us.af.mil

6. Past Performance has to be in the last 3 years?

Answer: Yes. The contract could have been awarded longer than 3 years ago as well, so long as performance was being done within the last 3 years. For example, if you were awarded a contract in 2012 and it ended in 2013 that contract would not meet the recency requirement. However, if you were awarded a contract in 2012 and it ended in 2015 your contract would meet the requirement due to the fact that the contract ended within the 3 year requirement.

7. Does the Government expect both an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and a Line of Balance (LOB)?

Answer: The IMS we are asking for is for evaluation purposes only. In Section L, we are asking you to propose the IMS that you’re saying you can hold up to in your proposed strategy. After award, it will transition into a LOB with key milestones identified along with dates from kit development. We think the IMS is just too challenging for this effort, and we really just want to see your LOB in the weekly status meetings to make sure you are on target to meet scheduled deliveries.

8. If you don’t have the NAICS code 336411 listed for your company, does it preclude you from proposing?

Answer: No as long as you meet the other requirements.

9. In reference to the Government utilizing a contractor as a scheduler in this source selection proposal evaluation process, will that scheduler see contractors’ cost volumes? There is concern a government provided scheduler would see contractor proposed rate information.

Answer: No we do not intend for that to happen but the FAR only dictates that contractors cannot see past performance information. Since this is a FFP effort, there is no real rate information for you to submit to worry about our contractor/scheduler to see.

10. The Government wants 1 hard copy proposal submitted and 1 electronic proposal?

Answer: No. The Government wants two (2) hard copies and one (1) electronic.

11. Do we need to use the typical risk management tool we see from the Government frequently or our own so we can properly state consequences?

Answer: We can add in the reference list that the Risk Management Guidebook which is what the Government commonly uses for you to look at to make sure risk requirements are consistent with what the Government uses.

12. In reference to the 3 years of past performance information, can you please elaborate or provide more explanation on this?

Answer: Contractors will utilize the Past Performance Information (PPI) tool. Instructions will be attached to the RFP describing how to submit their past performance information using the PPI tool. A contractor may submit no more than 3 contracts for themselves as the Prime and no more than 3 contracts for any subcontractor who is performing 25% or more of the work on the contract. For each contract, within the PPI tool contractors will have the opportunity to explain to the government how their previous contracts are relevant to the RFP. This is your opportunity to help show us how your efforts are similar to the work within the RFP. We will use your submissions, along with our evaluation to then determine the relevancy of your past performance.

13. The transportation is F.O.B. Destination as stated in Section L, is this a change from the last industry day (SOW Industry Day)?

Answer: Yes, this is a change. The Contractor will now be responsible for transportation costs.

14. In reference to the Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA), can they be in draft form or do they have to be final?

Answer: A good draft form will work because we don’t expect you to have everything finalized at time of proposal. The draft ACA should have some solid terms and conditions.

15. Does the Government still intend to provide a list of contacts for the directed subcontractors?

Answer: Yes, we will provide the list and POC information for each directed subcontractor when we post the Q&A’s from this session.

16. Do the ACAs (as referenced in question 14 above) have to include Rockwell and Honeywell?

Answer: Yes, we would expect that ACA agreements to include one with Honeywell and one with Rockwell.

17. Is there any value to seeking an ACA from Lockheed Martin in case there is any issues with the Technical Data Package or Record TCTO?

Answer: No, the Government owns the TCTO and TDP and we have engineering support from Robins AFB. If any concerns come up the contractor will work thru the Program Office to resolve.

18. Will the pricing offered by the directed subcontractors be the same to all companies?

Answer: This is your opportunity to negotiate those prices with the directed subcontractors. We still want them to provide a fair price to everyone but we understand there will be some variability in transportation costs. We would like to see the prices that they offer to you just to make sure there is fair and reasonable pricing that is in-line with our expectations.

19. Will the list of attachments in Section L now be updated to include the risk template discussed earlier (reference question 11 above)?

Answer: No. We will only indicate in the Reference documents in the Statement of Work where to find that risk template.

20. Has a determination been made if the IUID markings will need to be on the components of the kits that are above $5,000 or will they apply to the whole kit? Further question if the markings would also be on the equipment coming from the directed subcontractors?

Answer: There is a DFARS clause that will be part of this contract that will guide you through this process.

21. Are the Attachments listed in Section L uploaded on FBO right now?

Answer: There have not been any attachments issued at this time. We’re aiming to have some out there to you before RFP release but we cannot make any guarantees about that at this time. We will, however, make sure you have visibility of the CLIN structure, delivery dates, and clauses prior to the Model Contract Industry day planned for 14 Dec 17.

22. It was mentioned during the telecom that several site visits were conducted. Is a site visit a prerequisite for bidding on this effort? It was also mentioned that a clear picture of capabilities was still required as if a site visit was performed.

Answer: A site visit is not a prerequisite for bidding on this effort, however a clear description of capabilities are required in accordance with the requirements outlined in Sections L & M of the RFP package.