APAC Draft-RFP Response to Industry Comments (Final).pdf

(U) Advanced Propulsion Acquisition Contract (APAC) Multiple Award Contract (MAC)

Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)

(U) Draft-RFP Package Response to Industry Comments

(U) Agency: Department of the Air Force

(U) Office: Air Force Material Command

(U) Location: AFLCMC-Air Force Life Cycle Management Center

Disclaimer: To protect proprietary information and the anonymity of industry partners who provided responses to the APAC MAC IDIQ Draft-RFP RFI some questions/comments have been modified.

Regarding the 30-business day response timeframe for the APAC MAC IDIQ RFP, the USG received overwhelming support for the Delivery Order 1 timeline and will be moving forward with this duration for final RFP responses.

On behalf of LPA, we want to thank industry partners that responded to the APAC MAC IDIQ Draft-RFP RFI. Government responses are shown in blue, responses in red drove changes to APAC RFP documentation and will be depicted in final RFP release.

General

1. Is it possible to provide industry a draft schedule of activity for the APAC IDIQ? For example, RFP release date, RFP due date, estimated award notification timing? This information would greatly assist in internal resource planning. Also, given the ongoing government shutdown, are any delays anticipated in the upcoming APAC IDIQ RFP release?

a. The USG intends to provide industry with information for this effort in the near future on Sam.gov.

2. Will the updated propulsion roadmaps based on the Propulsion Board of Directors (PBoD) completed strategy be provided prior to the release of the APAC RFP?

a. This contracting effort is independent from the propulsion roadmap effort and PBoD.

3. There are several other propulsion IDIQs under development within AFRL. Will these programs eventually be integrated into APAC?

a. Follow-on DO/TOs have not been identified at this time. Each IDIQ will have its own requirements.

4. Could contracting officers accommodate more than one awardee email address for FOPR distribution in order to align with different business units?

a. If a company wants multiple distributions, they must provide details to the CO and they will be added to the email distribution.

5. Can foreign companies compete on activities involving the export of hardware (including materials / chemicals), technical information and software, as well as localization of production, licensing and cooperation agreements that are subject to licenses / approval?

a. Foreign sources will be eligible for contract award but may not be eligible to compete for certain orders.

6. Please specify if the Period of Performance is 10 years or 15 years.

a. The ordering period is 10 years and the period of performance (to complete work) is 15 years.

7. Can additional feedback be submitted to the Government after the draft RFP date from subcontractors?

a. Yes, feedback can be submitted up until RFP release. Information received immediately prior to release may not be incorporated in the final RFP.

8. DO1 Award – Will the Government consider completing the cost spreadsheet for all suppliers for the $1000?

a. No, it is the prime's cost proposal. Staffing Proposal/Price template is included with the APAC Draft-RFP Response to Industry Comments.

9. Recommend an alternate feedback tool in lieu of CPAR evaluations for non-traditional contractors.

a. CPARS evaluations are the method used by DoD to assess contractor performance.

10. Recommends implementing a recurring notice on SAM.gov before each on-ramp cycle.

a. On-ramp opportunities will be SAM posted solicitations.

11. It is recommended that the Government maximize the use of performance-based approaches for task orders within the APAC MAC IDIQ period of performance. This approach will significantly enhance the contract vehicle's effectiveness while better serving Government interests.

a. This approach is consistent with USG policy and will apply to TOs/DOs.

CDRL List

1. The “IPT process” is mentioned twice in this paragraph. However, the IPT process is not described or defined within this document. Recommend including definition or description of the IPT process.

a. APAC is structured around the Integrated Product Team (IPT) concept. An IPT is a hierarchical approach to program and process management that ensures technical, contractual, business, and fiscal integration, and systematically employs a teaming of functional resources. IPTs are implemented at multiple levels. A key characteristic of IPTs is that they are multi-functional, have all resources to perform their tasks, have responsibility, authority and accountability for all aspects of their product including cost, schedule and performance requirements.

2. The defined metadata and electronic delivery requirements is supported. The consideration of XML-based metadata tagging to support future integration with AFLCMC’s Digital Engineering Ecosystem and to improve traceability between contractor data deliverables and Government configuration management tools is recommended.

a. The specific requirements for CDRL deliverables will be specified in TOs/DOs.

The intent is to utilize the BOX system for deliveries. This system and a back-up system (DOD Safe) will be called out in the general notes for CDRL deliveries.

DO1 SOW

1. A 60-minute briefing is recommended to discuss all areas described as “future areas of capability relevant to propulsion technology, identify the benefits of current and future capabilities to the propulsion enterprise, identify company strengths in the propulsion enterprise and provide a discussion of that strength” across all areas and lifecycle phases of propulsion development described in the Introduction Section.

a. The USG intent is to understand at a high-level, contract awardee's ability to support future propulsion initiatives.

2. To ensure Offerors can provide complete and compliant proposals, a 60-90 day response time for future Delivery Orders or Task Orders is recommended, depending on complexity and scope.

a. The USG will set the response timelines for each FOPR. The USG intent is to simplify and streamline the proposal process.

3. It is understood that sometimes it is not possible to avoid releasing RFPs during major holidays. If this is unavoidable, please factor in holidays when determining the due date.

Also, for the RFP and/or call(s) if specific topics and/or subject matters of interest are known, providing industry this information as early as possible will allow for advance preparation and quick turnaround time for the RFP response.

a. The USG will do our best to avoid releasing RFPs during major holidays.

b. The USG intent is to understand at a high-level, contract awardee's ability to support future propulsion initiatives.

4. Regarding the Post Award Orientation Conference (PAOC), multiple propulsion topics of relevance are envisioned. Thirty minutes may not be sufficient time to effectively cover all topics of interest. Can some guidance on priority be provided on what AFLCMC considers most important and would like to discuss during the PAOC?

a. The USG intent is to understand at a high-level, contract awardee's ability to support future propulsion initiatives.

Industry User Guide

1. More information and clarity is desired to be included about the “box platform” regarding how it is hosted, how information and communications are pulled down or pushed out, and visibility of communication to the broader APAC Awardees.

a. The United States Government (USG) intends to post FOPRs visible to all contract holders. Contractors will post proposals in their own folder and they will be only visible to the contractor and the USG. The contract awardees will not need to purchase a license or pay licensing fees to access the BOX platform.

2. Are there any requirements for Contractor SOWs (ie, page limits, Non-Proprietary vs Proprietary, etc.)?

a. There is no requirement for contractor SOWs in the basic contract or DO1. All future DO/TOs will specify requirements for a contractor SOW (if required).

3. Clarify whether classified submissions will be allowed per the Industry User Guide or Per Section L, 2.2, "No classified information is permitted in the Offeror's response". Or is that only applicable to Delivery Order 01 (D01) and original proposal.

a. Section L 2.2 is only applicable to DO1 and original proposal. Future DOs/TOs may require a classified submittal but will be explained in the FOPR to industry.

4. Clarify if the BOX platform will be used or as referenced in other documents, DoD

SAFE?

a. The BOX platform will be the primary platform for posting FOPRs and is of no cost to industry.

5. The draft solicitation and contract refer to FAR 15, to better foster innovation, rapid response, and participation from small businesses and non-traditional businesses, non- FAR based acquisition via Other Transactions (OT), are recommended where applicable.

a. OTs are not within the scope of this contract. When OTs are appropriate, they may be issued separately from this contract.

6. In Section 4.3, recommend an alternate source of past performance in lieu of CPAR evaluations for small business / non-traditional participation. An alternate past performance source could be feedback from the contract customer.

a. CPARS evaluations are the method used by DoD to assess contractor performance.

Model Contract

1. The following statement is confusing to state within a single CLIN: “The total Period of Performance shall be fifteen (15) years from the award date; the Period of Performance for this Base CLIN shall be five (5) years, and the Period of Performance for the follow-on Option CLIN shall be five (5) years.” Further clarification is requested on IDIQ total Period of Performance relationship to CLINs in the Model contract to ensure it is fully understood.

a. The ordering period is 10 years (5 year base with 5 year option) and the period of performance (to complete work) is 15 years.

b. The basic contract items identify base period and option years, specific contract line items will be cited on each TO/DO.

2. The statement “The ceiling for this IDIQ contract is $X.” is redundant. The total award amount (ceiling) is specified in Box 26 on Page 1 of the contract. Recommendation:

remove this statement from CLIN’s.

a. The format of the Model Contract aligns with precedent Air Force contracts for similar efforts.

3. Comment: The listed attachments are referred to “exhibits” followed by a letter identifier throughout other sections of the contract. Recommendation: change the first column descriptor in this table from “Number” to “Exhibit” and the identifiers from numbers “01, 02, 03…” to letters “A, B, C…” for clarity and ease of cross reference.

a. The Model Contract will be updated for formal RFP release.

4. There are often issues or exceptions with the following clauses. Without further details of the DO/TO, alternate language (if it even applies) has not been drafted. Details would need to be worked during follow-on DO/TO negotiations.

a. The basic contract contains all potential clauses to ensure proper scope, TOs/DOs will identify specifically applicable clauses.

5. The draft solicitation and contract refer to FAR 15, to better foster innovation, rapid response, and participation from small businesses and non-traditional businesses, non- FAR based acquisition via Other Transactions (OT), are recommended where applicable.

a. OTs are not within the scope of this contract. When OTs are appropriate, they may be issued separately from this contract.

6. H Clauses – On/Off Ramping: The proposed on-ramping cadence in years 2, 5, and 7 effectively maintains competitive integrity. A transparent notice mechanism on SAM.gov for potential subcontractor partnerships prior to each on-ramp cycle is recommended.

This would enhance industry engagement and promote innovation while maintaining schedule efficiency.

a. On-ramp opportunities will be SAM posted solicitations.

Section L

1. The referenced Staffing Proposal/Price Template was not included in the draft attachments. Does the Government intend to include this template for comment?

a. Staffing Proposal/Price template is included with the APAC Draft-RFP Response to Industry Comments.

2. The proposal shall be valid for 180 calendar days from proposal due date. The Government may request extensions as necessary. Requesting 120-day validity periods for the sake of sub-contractor commitments

a. This timeline aligns with current precedent Air Force contracts for similar efforts.

3. Please confirm in the final RFP a written cost volume is not required for DO1 (as noted in the Industry User Guide, page 6).

a. The Industry Guide will be updated for formal RFP release.

4. For pricing purposes, what is the POP for DO1? Is it being held virtually? Can industry participate in-person?

a. Reference Section L Paragraph 5.3 for pricing terms regarding DO1. All PAOCs will be held virtually. The USG will schedule all PAOCs as soon as possible after contract award.

5. Other than the initial DO (where an Excel Sheet is referenced), are there any other general Cost Detail Requirements?

a. No, for DO1 there are no other general Cost Detail Requirements. Pricing requirements will be specified and submitted for future DO/TOs.

6. Requesting 6 pages (vs 4 pages) for Cover Letter (as it includes TOC and Executive Summary) Is the one-page limit for the Commitment letter only?

a. Cover letter and executive summary are limited to four pages, reference Table 1 of Section L. The commitment letter is limited to one page, reference Table 1 of Section L.

7. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms (Section 6) not listed in the instructions following the Table.

a. Reference Section L paragraph 2.5.

8. Typically not all FAR and DFARS clauses are acceptable to all contractors when proposing an IDIQ of this size/scope. How does the Government plan on negotiating with industry?

a. The basic contract contains all potential clauses to ensure proper scope; TOs/DOs will identify specific applicable clauses. Contractors are expected to know and follow the regulations laid out by the FAR and DFARS placed on contract.

Contractors working with the DoD need to comply with the DFARS and follow the FAR.

9. If no known OCI exists, is it sufficient to state such in the cover letter? If so, can that be clarified in the final RFP?

a. Even if no current OCIs are identified, the vendor must provide a plan for identifying and mitigating potential OCIs.

10. Is a statement in the cover letter sufficient, or does the Government prefer a copy of the accounting system determination in this section?

a. Identification of the review date and the responsible agency point of contact is considered sufficient evidence in accordance with Section M paragraph 3.4.

11. Consider a review of "shall statements" to gauge the burden of compliance review.

a. The USG has carefully considered changes of this nature.

12. Consider a scrub of Sec L to remove evaluation criteria statements and enhance submission instructions.

a. Section L provides detailed instructions and requirements for preparing and submitting a compliant proposal in response to this RFP. Section M provides the evaluation criteria for this RFP.

13. Consider rewording the usage restriction, "...when short notice or unique requirements and products are identified." This seems potentially limiting in execution. Alternatively, expand on the expected usage description to better explain how the contract is expected to be used.

a. Section L will be updated for formal RFP release.

14. Consider rewording or removing the paragraph beginning "All Contractors that provide a responsive and qualified proposal...". These sound like Section M statements and omit acceptability and other evaluation elements as requirements for award.

a. The USG has carefully considered changes of this nature. All contractors will be "eligible" for award. To be awarded a contract they must meet the evaluation criteria in Section M.

15. Consider expanding on the idea contained in the paragraph beginning with, "The Government intends to conduct evaluations on an incremental, " with rolling contract awards too. Or include incremental notification of proposal acceptability. This would decouple the straightforward offers from the tricky ones, potentially allowing use of the contract months earlier than otherwise paced by the last acceptable offeror.

a. The USG has carefully considered changes of this nature. Rolling contract awards are not envisioned on the APAC IDIQ.

16. Consider merits of dropping a competitive range determination. Given the uniqueness of this solicitation, that may be an unnecessary step/effort.

a. Award without discussions is anticipated. If discussions are necessary a competitive range determination must be made.

17. Consider elaborating on the plan to use clarifications, deficiencies, evaluation notices, etc. There are references to some of these, but additional detail will serve the interest of an efficient evaluation.

a. Award without discussions is anticipated. If discussions are necessary evaluation notices will be used.

18. Consider whether responses to ENs will be evaluated in standalone fashion, or updates to page-limited proposals will be required. Given the unique nature of this solicitation, streamlining the EN process could reduce the evaluation burden.

a. The USG has carefully considered aspects related to potential ENs.

19. Given there isn't competitive pricing, and the minimum order is $1000, consider the need for a proposal validity period of 180 days.

a. This timeline aligns with precedent Air Force contracts for similar efforts.

20. Consider merits of fewer than 4 pages for Cover Letter and Executive Summary.

Relatively speaking, that is a lot of content that isn't evaluated.

a. Offerors are welcome to submit a shorter executive summary.

21. Consider clarifying whether the minimum total number of efforts described is 2 or 3 (i.e., can the PIR example be one of the Technical Capability examples).

a. Section L will be updated for formal RFP release. Three (3) separate efforts are required to meet both Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 2.

22. Consider to what degree indexing will come into play given the uniqueness of this solicitation and clarify indexing vs. table of contents.

a. The USG has carefully considered this.

23. Consider allowing for the possibility that offerors will identify no OCIs at the IDIQ level and be clear that is acceptable.

a. Even if no current OCIs are identified, the vendor must provide a plan for identifying and mitigating potential OCIs.

24. Consider a different paragraph heading (3.5.4), one more specific to the requirement that must be met. Include how compliance with DFARS Clause 252-242-7006 fits into the overall proposal evaluation process.

a. Please reference Section M 3.4.

25. Consider expanding on the thought contained in the paragraph that begins, "FAR 52.219 is critical for small business." and reword into a submission instruction.

a. The USG has carefully considered this.

26. Consider tweaking to read more like a submission instruction (i.e., instructions on what and how to derive an effort, and maybe what constitutes an effort)(4.1.1).

a. The term "effort" is intended to convey its common understanding within this context. However, the USG has considered this suggestion.

27. Given no page limitations on Section L, consider expanding on these instructions to be very clear what offerors are to provide and in what format. Consider what will be easiest to evaluate.

a. Please reference Section 2 and Table 1 in Section L.

28. Do all subcontractors/suppliers need to be included on the cost spreadsheet of DO1?

a. No, the PAOC is for the prime contractor. Subcontractors may participate if authorized by the prime. No subcontractor cost is expected on the price proposal spreadsheet.

29. It is recommended that the following edit under Controlled Unclassified Information:

"Controlled Unclassified Information: As required by DFARS 252.204-7012, the Contractor shall treat information, data and other artifacts identified, marked, and handle designated by the USG/customer as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) according to applicable laws, regulations, and policies IAW DoDI 5200.48. This includes identifying decontrol requirements, safeguarding requirements, destruction methods, access / dissemination controls, incident reporting procedures, and implementation guidelines."

a. The recommended changes are not verbatim from DFARS 252.204-7012.

30. If the Prime Contractor is a small business, is it acceptable and sufficient for the Prime

Contractor to be the only small business participant listed in the SBPCD? Recommend that it is acceptable and sufficient as well as defining on the SBPCD template or in Section 4.3 of Section L.

a. Yes, it is acceptable to be listed in the SBPCD.

31. Recommend removing the requirement for an executive summary in Section 3.1.2 if not evaluated.

a. It is valuable for the Source Selection team to have context.

32. Unclear what the statement of "to complete fill-ins of section A-J" means.

a. For example, contractor information on SF 1449 cover page.

33. Recommend not requiring full compliance with listed regulations in Section 3.4 at the time of contract award and changing to a DO/TO requirement.

a. The USG intends that only applicable FAR/DFARS clauses will apply to individual orders, and they will be identified in the order.

34. Recommend Section 3.5.4 be removed to foster non-traditional participation. If Other Transaction agreements are incorporated into the IDIQ, this would also better enable non-traditional participation. Furthermore, if the offeror proposes Firm Fixed Price (FFP) bids, then the requirement for a qualified accounting system would be alleviated. If a qualified accounting system is required (i.e. Cost Plus type bid), recommend compliance statements be made at the TO/DO level and not at the IDIQ level.

a. Refer to Section M paragraph 3.4, contractors must have a plan related to cost accounting system.

b. OTs are not within the scope of this contract. When OTs are appropriate, they may be issued separately from this contract.

35. Sections 4.1 and 4.2 are unclear if the same effort can be used to address both sections.

Recommend defining and allowing the same effort to be used for both sections.

a. Two separate efforts are required. Refer to Section L Paragraph 4.1 and 4.2.

Section L will be updated for clarity for formal RFP release.

36. Can an offeror propose a price higher than $1,000 while still being compliant with the required price?

a. No, the offeror's proposal must total $1,000, if the price is above that amount a discount can be offered.

37. Recommend clarification on treatment of cover letter and appendices within the page limit.

a. Refer to Table 1 in Section L. Cover Letter and Executive Summary NTE 4 pages.

Sections 2-6 of contract administrative information aren't limited by page count.

Section M

1. For the Technical Proficiency response, should the two efforts focus on the classes of engine/platforms provided in the AFLCMC/LPA propulsion roadmaps? If so, is there a certain priority of interest? For example, upcoming CCA Increments, RSA, NGIA, convertible engines, hybrid electric?

a. Reference Section M paragraph 2 (and subordinate paragraphs). This contracting effort is independent from the propulsion roadmap effort.

2. Must the efforts focus on completed or existing contract work with the government (CRAD), or can IRAD efforts also be used?

a. All propulsion industry experience is considered applicable, IAW Section M paragraph 2.3.

3. For the Propulsion Industry Relevance (PIR) response, again, should the information provided focus on any of the engine/platforms included in the AFLCMC/LPA propulsion roadmaps? We would like to make sure our response includes applications relevant to the objectives of the APAC IQIQ.

a. All propulsion industry experience is considered applicable, IAW Section M paragraph 2.3. This contracting effort is independent from the propulsion roadmap effort.

4. Will the Technical Proficiency and/or Propulsion Industry Relevance responses of a company be used to determine the type of awards that company receives? For example, if a company provides a response focused on a specific type of propulsion, would that company then be selected for an award focused on that subject matter?

a. All follow on DO/TOs will be awarded based on specific criteria defined in the associated FOPR. The USG anticipates robust competition for DO/TOs.

5. Consider a review of "shall statements" to gauge the burden of compliance review.

a. The USG has carefully considered changes of this nature.

6. Consider a scrub of Sec M to remove submission instructions and enhance evaluation criteria statements.

a. Section M aligns with precedent Air Force contracts for similar efforts.

7. Consider elaborating on the evaluation process description to comprehensively address all aspects of the evaluation in the order they will be accomplished (e.g., timeliness;

compliance; tech eval; responsibility; OCI; etc.) Consider also a flow chart to illustrate the process.

a. The USG has carefully considered all aspects of evaluations. Please reference Section M.

8. Consider the merits of not having an FPR. Given there is no price competition, this may be an unnecessary step/effort.

a. If discussions are initiated, an FPR is required.

9. Consider removing relative ranking of subfactors. Given the evaluation will determine acceptability, this may be an unnecessary distinction. If relative ranking is important, perhaps clarify how in an enhanced description of the evaluation process.

a. The USG has taken this into careful consideration.

10. The statement of "responsibility determination" seems out of place given the paragraph heading.

a. Section M will be updated for formal RFP release.

11. The table suggests that an Acceptable/Unacceptable rating will be assessed at the Factor level, in addition to the Subfactor level. Consider clarifying how subfactor ratings will roll into a factor rating.

a. If a proposal is found to be unacceptable for any Subfactor, the proposal is unacceptable for Factor 1.

12. Consider elaborating on what is meant by "meets the requirements of the solicitation," in the context of this solicitation. Specificity can streamline both submission and evaluation.

a. The USG has taken this into careful consideration. Please reference Section M.

13. The content beginning with "The Offeror shall describe efforts completed within the past five (5) years" seems out of place. It also reads as submission instructions, better located in Section L.

a. Section M aligns with precedent Air Force contracts for similar efforts. If experience is not within the five-year period, it will be found to be unacceptable.

14. Consider removing submission instructions and elaborate on what is meant by "capability to accomplished the specified tasks and deliver meaningful results." Subparagraphs can be reworded to establish what constitutes acceptability.

a. The USG has taken this into careful consideration. Section M aligns with precedent Air Force contracts for similar efforts.

15. Is the "one (1) effort" to be in addition to the two minimally described in 2.2?

a. Yes, three (3) separate efforts are required to meet both Subfactor 1 and Subfactor

2.

16. "air-breathing or solid fuel engines" should be amended to include liquid fuel engines.

a. Section L and Section M will be updated for formal RFP release.

17. Recommend extending relevant experience to at least 10 years for both evaluation factors.

a. 10 years isn't consistent with the APAC team's experiences on past evaluations.

The USG has determined that 5 years is an appropriate timeframe.

18. Can you confirm what propulsion areas are intended or geared toward. Is it specifically air breathing propulsion (Turbojets, turbofans, etc.), is Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) propulsion areas also included in any of the work areas shown: 1) Science and Technology, 2) Research and Development, 3) Test and Evaluation, 7) Modernization, 8) Prototyping, and 11) Propulsion Design.

a. The scope includes requirements related to aircraft, rotorcraft, and munitions.

19. In section 2.1.3, Table 2, it is unclear what indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives. Is an adequate approach and understanding based on percentage of the effort being completed by a small business or another metric?

Recommend defining what an adequate approach and understanding means. Section 2.4 adds more clarity, but is still unclear, given that “A SB minimum quantitative requirement is not being specified”.

a. This subfactor is not based on a specific percentage of small business participation.

20. Can a subcontractor or a partner's experience be used to demonstrate for Technical Capability IAW FAR 9.601(2)?

a. No, the prime contractor must demonstrate relevant efforts.

21. Recommends specifying/expanding "Propulsion Industry Relevance" to include digital engineering and AI based interfaces/analysis processes.

a. The scope of acceptable submission is described in section L paragraph 4.2 and section M paragraph 2.3. The cited effort must be related to propulsion.

22. Recommends Propulsion Industry Relevance to be expanded to include systems engineering for integration, logistics and sustainment planning, digital models and simulation tools.

a. The scope of acceptable submission is described in section L paragraph 4.2 and section M paragraph 2.3. The cited effort must be related to propulsion.

23. Clarify if there are differences between Propulsion Industry Relevance and Technical Capability factors, and if one propulsion-based effort can count for all three.

a. No, one effort cannot count for all three. Section L and Section M will be updated for formal RFP release.

Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD)

1. Can this template be provided in a fillable format at RFP release?

a. The USG is considering a fillable format for the SBPC

2. A percentage of effort is mentioned related to small business participation. Does the USG have a threshold / goal for participation (perhaps as a percentage)?

a. This subfactor is not based on a specific percentage of small business participation. Reference Section M paragraph 2.4.

3. If a contractor has an approved comprehensive subcontracting plan in place, is it acceptable to provide that in the proposal in lieu of the individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan(s) & SBPCD template?

a. The SBPCD is required, and you may reference your comprehensive small business subcontracting plan.

4. Does the APAC IDIQ require partnerships with small businesses?

a. No, however, a Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Small Business

Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) are required and will be evaluated IAW with Sections L paragraphs 3.5.5 and 4.3, and Section M paragraphs 2.4 and 3.5.

SOW

1. To ensure Offerors can provide complete and compliant proposals, a 60–90-day response time is recommended for future Delivery Orders or Task Orders, depending on complexity and scope.

a. The USG will set the response timelines for each FOPR. The USG intent is to simplify and streamline the proposal process.

2. Is the government seeking Unlimited Data Rights to the technologies developed under this contract? We anticipate that our solutions will include enhancements to existing technologies that have protections, for instance, under SBIR Data Rights. We would like to request language in the RFP that simple extensions to existing technologies and data continue to be protected under current data rights.

a. Data rights will be determined for each order consistent with FAR 27.4, and DFARS Part 227.4 and 227.71 policies.

3. Recommend clarifying if personnel without a clearance but a US Person can access CUI info?

a. Yes, if need to know and appropriate training is completed.

4. Cybersecurity – Under Deliverable Security Requirements, it would be helpful if the

Government could simplify or better organize these requirements to be more understandable. The current way written cofounds multiple requirements including security.

a. Updated Statement of Work will be released with formal RFP.

5. Definition of Propulsion – Can the Government clarify if the intent is for the Propulsion

Directorate to focus on air-breathing propulsion only or does it include other propulsion techniques like rocketry?

a. The scope includes requirements related to aircraft, rotorcraft, and munitions.

6. Recommend emphasizing the ability to leverage contractor testing facilities in the Test and Evaluation area.

a. Specific testing requirements will be defined in TOs/DOs, as appropriate.

7. This section indicates that this IDIQ will enable task orders for S&T under AFRL as well as things like future depot/R&O support and spare parts for sustainment. Is this future RFP intended to enable all the types of transactions listed in section 2?

a. Future DO/TOs may encompass S&T as stated in the APAC SOW however this contracting effort is independent from Air Force Research Laboratories (AFRL).

b. Future DO/TOs and associated requirements are unknown at this time.

8. Recommend clarifying between "typical" and "mandatory" requirements in Section 3.1-

3.3.

a. Specific requirements will be defined in the SOWs for TO/DOs.