INDUSTRY QUESTIONS REGARDING FA863022R4000 PROS VI 29 NOV 2021 REV 5.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE

29 NOV 2021 REV 5

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

FROM: AFLCMC/WFK

AFSAC

SUBJECT: INDUSTRY QUESTIONS REGARDING FA8630-22-R-4000 PROS VI, REV 5

The purpose of this document is to organize industry questions and Government answers, this document is subject to revisions as new questions are received. This document has been revised with current revisions captured in BOLD.

1. QUESTION Received 26 Oct 2021: According to sam.gov, PROS VI was supposed to be released on 25 Oct. May I ask if it’s been posted under another page? I can’t seem to find it.

ANSWER Posted 26 Oct 2021: The new FY requires a FY 22 in place of the DRAFT

RFP FY 20. The draft RFP was updated 26 OCT 2021 to direct followers of the opportunity to the Notice ID FA8630-22-R-4000 published RFP. FA8630-20-R-4000 is the “Related Notice” for the published RFP FA8630-22-R-4000 and both are found when searching both Notice IDs and “PROS VI” keywords.

2. QUESTION Received 27 Oct 2021: Section L (Section J, Attachment 10 Instructions to

Offerors) 3.6.6 Past Performance Questionnaires states: “The Offeror shall send a standard transmittal letter to request the points of contact complete an unclassified Past Performance

Questionnaire and submit via email five (5) working days after release of this solicitation.”

It is unclear who is to submit what (5) working days after release of the solicitation – is this the

Offeror submitting the Past Performance Questionnaires to the points of contact or the points of contact submitting their completed Past Performance Questionnaires to the Government?

ANSWER Posted 29 Oct 2021: The Offeror is required to submit the Past Performance

Questionnaires to the points of contact within 5 days. The points of contact (POC) are requested to submit to the Government by 26 Nov 2021, however if the Government

POC’s are unresponsive then the Past Performance Source Selection Team will attempt to contact the POC’s using their contact information included in the Past Performance

Volume delivered on 9 Dec 2021.

FAR 2.101 Definitions: Day means, unless otherwise specified, a calendar day.

3. QUESTION Received 27 Oct 2021: Section L (Section J, Attachment 10 Instructions to

Offerors) 3.6.6 Past Performance Questionnaires states: “The Government requests the Offeror send out Past Performance Questionnaires, Attachment L- 3 and L-4, for each citation to at least two Government points of contact.”

The Government did not provide Attachment L-3 or L-4 files; however, Section L Attachment 5

Past Performance Questionnaire (filename: Section+L+Attachment

5+Past+Performance+Questionnaire) does appear to be one of the referenced Past Performance

Questionnaire files referenced in 3.6.6 as “L-3 and L-4”.

Please clarify Section L 3.6.6 and provide the file(s) required to be sent out for each citation to at least two Government points of contact.

ANSWER Posted 29 Oct 2021: Section L has AMMENDMENT 2, 29 Oct 2021, that provides revisions to incorporate administrative errors to change from “L-3 and L-4” to

L-4 and L-5.

4. QUESTION Received 27 Oct 2021: Amendment to RFP RA8630-22-R-4000 PROS VI published 27 Oct 2021 (filename: AMENDMENT+TO+RFP+REGARDING+FA8630-22-R-

4000+PROS+VI+27+Oct+21), part 2, the language in Section L, paragraph 3.6.6 was changed to

“…no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on 9 December 2021”. However, Section L Attachment

5 Past Performance Questionnaire (filename: Section+L+Attachment

5+Past+Performance+Questionnaire) states, “In order to meet the acquisition milestones, we request your written response no later than 5:00 pm EST on 26 November 2021”, which is inconsistent with the amended Section L due date.

Please clarify which date the completed questionnaires are due. For example, does the

Government intend to release a new Section L Attachment 5 with the updated 9 December 2021 requirement for consistency?

ANSWER Posted 29 Oct 2021: The Past Performance Questionnaires are a requirement for Offerors to distribute questionnaires to their prior contract Points of Contact (POC), as identified in Section L 3.6.6. within 5 days of the RFP release. These Government

POCs are then requested to deliver the questionnaire by 26 November 2021. If the

Government POCs are unresponsive to the 26 November 2021 timeline, the Source

Selection Past Performance Team will review the Past Performance Volume received no later than 9 Dec 2021 for the POC’s that received questionnaires. The Source Selection

Past Performance Team will attempt to contact and request Past Performance

Questionnaires for any outstanding questionnaires unresponsive as of 9 Dec 2021. The 5 day timeline to engage POCs is a requirement to meet acquisition schedule, but the imperative is that offerors deliver their Past Performance Volume, identifying POCs, no later than 5:00 pm EST on 9 Dec 2021.

5. QUESTION Received 1 Nov 2021: According to Section L, the Contractor’s past performance must be within 3 years of the PROS VI issue date (25 Oct). We have highly relevant past performance that falls just shy of that specific date. Would USG consider expanding the past performance recency requirement?

ANSWER Posted 2 Nov 2021: The USG will not expand the past performance recency.

6. QUESTION Received 1 Nov 2021: Can past performance have been performed as a subcontractor? Or must all Prime submissions have been performed as a prime?

ANSWER Posted 2 Nov 2021: Past performance can be submitted for an offeror as a subcontractor and or prime.

7. QUESTION Received 2 Nov 2021: Will USG consider an extension to the PPQ due date (26

Nov) to accommodate the Thanksgiving Holiday?

ANSWER Posted 2 Nov 2021: No, the 26 Nov 2021 schedule is a requested date and not an imperative. Please see answer 4 above.

8. QUESTION Received 4 Nov 2021: Will USG consider allowing an otherwise winning

Offeror 6 months to acquire a DCMA-approved CPS after contract award?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: No. Without the DCMA-approved CPS, the “otherwise winning offeror” would not be able to pass through the gate and, thus, would not be evaluated any further.

9. QUESTION Received 4 Nov 2021: At what Rehabilitation Act Section 508 level does the public website need to be?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: In accordance with FAR 39.203 “Applicability [of

Information and Communication Technology]” and Reference Code of Federal

Regulations, Title 36, Chapter XI, Part 1194, Appendix A, “Electronic content shall conform to Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements.”

10. QUESTION Received 4 Nov 2021: The Government called the other, recent Beta.Sam.Gov postings (10/27/21 & 10/29/21) as Amendments (See the Letters), but did not provide an actual

Amendment document (SF-30) so that it can be signed and included in Offeror’ submissions.

Please clarify the amendments for Offeror’s responses, as well as, amendment acknowledgement on the SF-33.

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Government amendments were made to specific

Section J documents. None of the Section J documents were assembled into the Contract

Writing software. Once all questions received, answered, and amendments to the posted documents have been made, the Government will review the RFP for final changes prior to the proposal submission and will publish the updated RFP with revised PART III –

LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS & ATTACHMENTS SECTION J – LIST OF

ATTACHMENTS (Adobe Page 82 of 88).

11. QUESTION Received 4 Nov 2021: Attachment 2 appears to have been for a DD-254;

however, it states, “RESERVED (DD FORM 254 REMOVED)”. In order for Offerors’ to have a clear understanding of their security roles and responsibilities so that they can propose an adequate security approach, a DD-254 is required to be reviewed.

Please provide a DD-254 for this program.

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: This is an unclassified effort and a DD-254 is not needed. Therefore, Contractor personnel shall obtain and maintain a Tier 1 Background

Investigation. An amendment to PWS 2.1.8.1 has been made.

12. QUESTION Received 4 Nov 2021: PWS 2.1.7.2 states, “USG IT systems could be replaced anytime during the life of the PROS contract and the Contractor shall ensure an interface is maintained and interface documentation is updated and delivered, at no additional cost to the

USG.”

In order for Offerors to estimate the scope and cost of a solution to a common requirement, can the Government provide an anticipated timeline and system identification of USGs replacement systems?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Government estimates a SAMIS Modernization

Effort to take place in 5 to 10 years. More specific information on that effort can be found publicly on SAM.GOV for the following opportunity: Industry Day One-on-Ones –

Modernizing the Air Force (AF) Foreign Military Sales (FMS) legacy systems (CMCS &

SAMIS). https://sam.gov/opp/6d005bdb3e754ccc8c5a58beffcea97c/view

13. QUESTION Received on 4 Nov 2021: PWS 2.2.1 references the Customer Decision

Authority (CDA); however, the CDA is not defined or explained. Would you please describe the organizational entities that comprise of the CDA (e.g., US Government Customer, FMS

Customer, Contractor, etc.)?

ANSWER Posted on 23 Nov 2021: The Customer Decision Authority (CDA) is the FMS

Customer or the designated Government members acting on behalf of the Country with the authority to select vendors on the basis of Best Value.

14. QUESTION Received 4 Nov 2021: PWS 2.1.8.1 Clearance Requirements states in part, “All

Contractor personnel using USG Unclassified automated information systems (e.g., SAMIS, MISIL, CISIL, WebSDR, SDR-Automation, and AFSAC Online) shall obtain and maintain a

Tier 1 Secret Clearance, at minimum.”

If these systems are unclassified and Offerors are not required to store classified material, and there is no DD-254, then why do these personnel require SECRET clearance? If security clearances are not required, please revise accordingly.

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: Please see the answer to Question #11 for information.

15. QUESTION Received 5 Nov 2021: PWS 2.2.2.1 requires MICAP requirements be bid for routine cost/schedule and for MICAP expedited cost/schedule. Does the Customer require

MICAP expedited and routine bids be communicated on the same line in the CTS?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Table and format in PWS 2.2.2.1 were provided as samples. The Contractor solution does not have to be in this format.

https://sam.gov/opp/6d005bdb3e754ccc8c5a58beffcea97c/view

16. QUESTION Received 4 Nov 2021: Section L, Para 3.5.2 states: “IAW DoD Risk, Issue, and

Opportunity (RIO) Management Guide for Defense Acquisitions Program (January 2017)

Section 3.3, the Offerors shall propose a Risk Reporting Matrix identifying all “yellow” and

“red” Technical Risks and Programmatic Risks inherent in its specific approach considered to have the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased

Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.”

The contract will identify risks that potentially impact degradation of performance and establishing the highest consequence rating as unsuccessful contract performance. Having both

“degradation of performance” and “unsuccessful contract performance” creates a duplication of effort and takes up valuable page space. This may also introduce confusion as we attempt to address differences in the two and the Government attempts to evaluate the differences.

Request the Government consider removing the requirement to address unsuccessful performance consequence in addition to degradation of performance consequence and allow the contractor to address unsuccessful performance as the highest consequence rating of degradation of performance.

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: Those are two different measures and, thus, the

Government will not remove those requirements.

17. QUESTION Received 4 Nov 2021: Offerors have no control over whether Government

Points of Contacts are responsive to Past Performance Questionnaires. While offerors can make every effort to achieve the objective, the POCs may fail to submit a timely response.

To what extent with failed or late questionnaire submittals by Government POCs impact the evaluation.

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: Correct. The Contractor’s responsibility is to only send them out and the Government’s responsibility is to follow-up. The Government’s responsibility will not impact the evaluation of the Contractor.

18. QUESTION Received 9 Nov 2021: The RFP list NAICS code 541614 suggesting this RFP is limited to $16,500m company size. There is no mention of a set-aside in the contract data – can you clarify this since we have an innovative solution but the NAICS code limits companies that exceed the $16,5m threshold.

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: This is not applicable since PROS VI is not a Small

Business Set-Aside. The Small Business Specialist has supported this effort for Full and

Open Competition.

19. QUESTION Received 9 Nov 2021: PWS Para 2.1.7.2 states, “Contractor CTS shall interface

(send and receive logistics and financial data) with multiple USG systems including, but not limited to, Air Force Security Assistance Management Information System (SAMIS), Navy

Management Information System – International Logistics (MISIL), and Army Centralized

Integrated System – International Logistics (CISIL).”

Section M.2.5.4 includes Subfactors and Measures of Merit that assess Offeror’s preparedness, capabilities and estimates to interface their CTS with Government IT systems. Without details on how to interface with these systems, it is challenging for Offerors other than the incumbent to determine the scope, schedule, and cost of developing and testing these interfaces.

Will the Government provide detailed interface documents for accessing these legacy

Government IT systems?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Government IT team will provide access to all known interface documentation during the study phase of execution after award.

Currently, all known documentation is available for release publicly at SAM.Gov titled, “BIDDER’S LIBRARY: The Parts and Repair Ordering System (PROS) VI” https://sam.gov/opp/4c127122a00745f2bf56a9a3118416ff/view

20. QUESTION Received 9 Nov 2021: Exceptions to the one-year warranty. PWS 2.14.11 states, “If a one-year warranty cannot be obtained or a greater than one-year warranty is offered, contractor shall notify customer and must receive approval prior to award utilizing the CTS for communication and approval.”

Does the Government have a system of approval for one-year warranty exceptions (AFSAC

PROS Website, Email, other)?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Government does not have a dedicated system for

PROS VI. The offeror shall utilize their CTS to interface with SAMIS, vendors, and customers.

21. QUESTION Received 9 Nov 2021: Section L 3.1 TABLE 1 – PROPOSAL

ORGANIZATION BY VOLUME does not indicate where offerors are to provide the Section 3.9

Other Information Required response, specifically, Section 3.9.1 Authorized Offeror Personnel and Section 3.9.3 Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations.

Please confirm that Section 3.9 information is to be included in Volume V.

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: An amendment has been made at Section L, Paragraph

3.1, Table 1 to include “Other Information.”

22. QUESTION Received 9 Nov 2021: We assume that the PowerPoint slides used for Oral

Presentation materials and Word format for the Strengths narrative will not be included in the

40-page limit for Volume II ITO Para Number 3.5 Technical Factor listed in Section L 3.1, Table

1.

Please confirm that the PowerPoint slides are exempt from the page size and format requirements in Section J, Attachment 10, Section 3.1.2.

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Oral Presentation materials that will be presented during the 2-hour presentation (please see the response to Question #29) and Strengths justification will not be included in the 40-page limit. An amendment has been made to

Section L 3.1.1. The format requirements are required on all documents.

https://sam.gov/opp/4c127122a00745f2bf56a9a3118416ff/view

23. QUESTION Received 9 Nov 2021: Section L.3.5.6.2 states, “The presentation shall demonstrate and explicitly identify existing capabilities that meet CTS requirements in accordance with PWS 2.1.7, a conceptual approach to meeting the requirements, or a combination.” It also requires the Offeror to “…at a minimum, present a walk-through of the life-cycle of a Commercial Transaction, DD capabilities, IDE capabilities, and automation opportunities (not limited to CDRLs, Contract File Generation, or Service Summaries).”

Section M.2.5.4.2, 2nd paragraph, bullet 1 states, “the Offeror can earn a strength if the live demonstration identifies an existing capability, utilized on a current effort, which meets all

PROS VI CTS requirements (PWS Paragraph 2.1.7)” There is a second strength as well, and both must be addressed within the Technology Demonstration: “If a strength is proposed during the oral presentation, the information shall be submitted in writing as a narrative included with the oral presentation materials in order for the strength to be realized and contractually binding, IAW FAR 15.102(f).”

PWS Para 2.1.7 contains numerous requirements, to the 4th level of sub-requirements in some cases. All these, plus the lifecycle and Strengths -- to be demonstrated in the 1-hour limit identified in Section L.3.5.6.2, 2nd paragraph, last sentence, “No presentation may exceed 1 hour.”

It would appear that 1 hour is an insufficient time period for Offerors to: (1) provide a true sense of their CTS capabilities relative to PWS 2.1.7 requirements; (2) provide a meaningful life-cycle walk-through; and (3) fully explain proposed Strengths. Suggest the Government consider lengthening the Oral Presentation to 2 hours to allow offerors to fully address all requirements and to ensure the Government receives a comprehensive demonstration of Offerors’ CTS solutions.

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: An amendment has been made at Section L 3.5.6.2 to increase the time limit of the oral presentation by one hour, from 1 hours allotted to 2 hours allotted.

24. QUESTION Received 9 Nov 2021: As part of our response to Section J, Attachment 10, Section 3.5.6.2, we are prepared to deliver a live, web-based technology demonstration of our

CTS solution, in addition, to a PowerPoint overview of the technology to support this demonstration and a Word or PDF narrative of our Strengths.

Please confirm that a web-based, live demonstration is expected along with a PowerPoint overview and Word narrative of our Strengths.

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Government considers the described approach as an acceptable process to satisfy the Section L instructions.

25. QUESTION Received 9 Nov 2021: Section J, Attachment 11, Section L, Paragraph 2.5.4.2, 2nd bullet states, “The Offeror can earn a strength for a proposed CTS that exceeds 90% development, as evidenced during the oral presentation and documented in the narrative.”

Please clarify how the Government defines percentage of development?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: All requirements must be identified and 90% or greater must trace to the proposed CTS with applicable Strength justifications.

26. QUESTION Received 9 Nov 2021: Each of these paragraph(s) [in Attachment 10, Section

L, Paragraph 3.8.3, Paragraph 3.8.5, Paragraph 3.8.6, Paragraph 3.8.7, and Paragraph 3.8.8] state: “No special instructions.”

To ensure consistency across all proposals received by the Government, there is no expectation by the Government that these Paragraphs are to be responded to, correct?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: Correct.

27. QUESTION Received 4 Nov 2021: PWS 2.1.8.6 Classified Material states, “Contractor shall ensure classified material is processed IAW appropriate USG regulations and directives.

Contractor shall ensure immediate reporting to USG of any unexpected receipt of classified data, Commercial Transactions and/or repairable items. There is no Contractor requirement to store classified material on this contract.”

What is meant by ‘ensure classified material is processed’? Will vendors be required to issue, repair, maintain or store classified items?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: In the event classified material is inadvertently received at the Contractor’s Facility, the Contractor will contact DEFENSE

COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY AGENCY. Typically the culpability is with the party that sent the classified material or instructed the classified material to be sent. Vendors may be required to provide classified supply items or repair classified items. The PWS is silent on this because the Prime Contractor has no requirement to handle, store, or ship classified items.

28. QUESTION Received 4 Nov 2021: PWS 2.2.1.1 directs the Contractor to incorporate

Customer direction and allows for the Customer to make award decisions. Please describe the desired workflow in detail. Is Contractor input part of the workflow? To what extent does the

Contractor have decision or influence on the vendor selection?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: PWS 2.2.1.1 should have been updated to eliminate requirement for Customer to identify LPTA upfront versus BVDM. BVDM will provide the CDA the information needed to select a Best Value source.

29. QUESTION Received 4 Nov 2021: PWS 2.2.3.3.6 requires the Electronic File Report

(EFR) to contain the Contract Competition Index (CCI) at the time of award. Please provide guidance on how the Market Share “S” is to be obtained or calculated?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Contractor will be responsible to track metrics and provide validation to the Government. The Contractor can utilize their CTS to track all dollar values of transactions and categorize the values on competed values and other important metrics identified.

30. QUESTION Received 4 Nov 2021: [PWS 2.16.7] Paragraph states: “If DTS mode of shipment is identified within Commercial Transaction, the materiel shall be stored while awaiting DCMA shipping instructions. After DCMA approval and upon shipment of materiel, contractor shall notify customer with an RK status code and AS3 shipment transaction reflecting total quantity and actual unit of issue.”

Can the Government provide historical data or forecast the frequency, duration, and space required to store these materials? Can the Government please confirm that these costs can be invoiced to CLINs X001, X002 & X004?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The storage is supported by vendors, it is a cost of doing business and as an example inventory turnover costs. The Government confirms that vendor storage invoiced in accordance with PWS 2.1.9.3.1.1 Fixed Price Invoice of materiel for supply items and repair services, to include 30 days storage, CLIN 0004AA and 0004AB. There is no requirement for Offeror to store items. If Government caused delays impact storage greater than

30 days, then the FFP 30 day rate should be tracked and requested.

31. QUESTION Received 4 Nov 2021: ‘Instructions to Offerors’ tab, Row 3 [of Attachment 5, the Pricing Matrix] states, “Fill Prices will encompass the total overall cost for the contractor to perform on this contract. The CLIN X001, X002, and X003 Fill Prices must include, but not be limited to, prime contractor labor, fringe benefits, overhead, and general & administrative, vendor and subcontractor management, transition phase-in costs, mandatory travel requirement at PWS 2.1.4 Meetings and Reviews, data, and prime contractor PC&H costs, and prime storage costs.”

The TEP Tab, Rows 2-3 states: “This worksheet is intended to provide the offeror with their

Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which is displayed in Cell G and H13 below. No input is required by the offeror in this worksheet. The worksheet will automatically calculate based upon the Fill

Prices and Service Prices that are entered for the 5-Year Base Period and the five Option Years.

Additionally, each offeror’s [price] totals will be added together with estimated values for items including Task Orders, Travel, Material/Maintenance Costs, Data, the Objective Performance

Incentive, and Over and Above requirements. All offerors have these same values (BLUE

FONT) applied to their TEP. The TEP may not equate with the estimated contract value.

Please confirm that the Government will reimburse only direct vendor/supplier costs on CLINs

0004 – 5004, 0005 – 5005, and that offerors must recover any and all burdens (such as overhead, G&A/material handling, etc.) on these CLINs through CLINs X001, X002, and X003 Fill Prices.

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Government accept FFP invoices for vendors on

CLINs 0004 – 5004, 0005 – 5005, and offerors must recover any and all burdens (such as overhead, G&A/material handling, etc.) on CLINs X001, X002, and X003 Fill Prices.

32. QUESTION Received 4 Nov 2021: The CLIN title for the initial task order in Cell A44 of the “5 Year Base Period “Tab of Attachment 5- Pricing Matrix and Cell A43 of the “Total

Value” Tab shows “0005 Task Order FA8630-22-F-4001” which is different from the CLIN title in Attachment 10 (Instructions to Offerors), Section L 3.7.2.2 Volume Organization and the

“TEP” Tab of Attachment 5, cell A9 which both shows “FA8630-22-F-4001.”

Can the Government remedy this inconsistency?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Government has amended Attachment 5 to correct the language to “Task Order, FA8630-22-F-4001 - CTS Study Implementation at PWS 1.2.10 and PWS 2.1.1.”

33. QUESTION Received 4 Nov 2021: [Attachment 10, Section] L 3.1.1 does not specifically state that Technical Volume List of Tables and Drawings is excluded from page count. Please confirm that the List of Tables and Drawings is excluded from the 40-page limit for Technical

Volume.

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Government amended L 3.1.1.

34. QUESTION Received 4 Nov 2021: [Attachment 10, Section] L 3.1.1 does not state that the

Executive Summary List of Tables and Drawings is excluded from page limit. Please clarify whether the List of Tables and Drawings is included in, or excluded from, the 2-page limit for the Executive Summary.

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Government amended L 3.1.1.

35. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Since contracts (subcontracts) solely for the manufacture/supply of products are exempted, will the Government require that the application of DFARS 252.223-7999 (Ensuring Adequate COVID-19 Safety Protocols for all Federal

Contractors [Deviation 2021-O0009), or other related clause(s) be flowed down to all vendors on the PROS VI contract?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: At this time, DFARS 252.223-7999 (Ensuring Adequate

COVID-19 Safety Protocols for all Federal Contractors [Deviation 2021-O0009) is required for PROS VI and the applicable flow down to subcontracts is required. The vendors, though largely delivering solely items of supply to the FMS partners, are doing so under a Service-coded base contract. The principal discriminator discussed in the webinar as to the new clause’s applicability seemed to focus on that labor coding in

FPDS. Since the base would need the clause, and the current guidance is that the requirement flows down to all sub-vendors under the basic contract, the vendors would not be exempted.

36. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: How long does customer (country) have to ship an unserviceable unit to the Source of Repair (SOR) before the transaction/requisition is cancelled?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: That timeline needs to support the SA customer, the capabilities of the Prime Contractor, and vendors. Therefore, the timeline and process could either be standard or uniquely captured in each Best Value Decision Matrix per each Commercial Transaction. Therefore, if either approach can be proposed and evaluated as a strength IAW Section L and Section M, then it can be incorporated into the contract at award.

37. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: How long does customer (country) have to respond to the questions, make a decision for source selection, or price approval? If the customer does not meet these specified response timelines, does the transaction (requisition) automatically cancel?

And will the contractor be paid a fill [price]?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: Please see PWS 2.2.1.on proposal validity and 2.14.3.2 process for quality records and data management for Financial Management. When proposal validity expires then no CLIN 0001 Fill Price can be obtained; therefore CLIN

0002 Cancellation Price can be obtained. The Quality Assurance Plan requires approval and covers many areas of execution including Financial Management.

38. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Will the Government please clarify how many pages are allotted for the other items in the Past Performance Volume to include all 6 required elements of the volume?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Government has amended the RFP and the page limit for the Past Performance Volume is 10.

39. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: No Attachment L-3 is included with available contract documents. Attachment L-4 appears to be the PPI tool Instructions and Character Limits. Will the Government please confirm that Attachment L-4 is used to identify PPI in the Past

Performance Volume?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: L-3 is reserved if the offeror provides the USG a Client

Authorization Letter as applicable. Yes L-4 is the PPI Tool Instructions and Character Limits for the L-5 PPI tool that populates the PPI.

40. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Will the Government please clarify whether 11x17 pages count as 1 page or 2 pages?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: 1 page. 2 pages is not addressed anywhere in the RFP.

41. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Will the USG consider changing the requirement for

Gate 1 of an approved Contractor Purchasing System (CPS) to the contractor must receive approval of CPS during the first 90 days after contract award?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: No, the Government will not consider changing the requirement.

42. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: It is unclear what is meant to be covered in item: f.

System Description of the Technical Volume outline. It appears that the description of the

Contractor Technology Solution (CTS) is to be provided later in the Volume Organization, in item j. Subfactor 1.2: Information Technology, Measure of Merit 1: CTS. Will the Government please clarify if the CTS description in item j. Subfactor 1.2 should also be provided in item f.

System Description? Or, if these are not the same systems? Will the Government please clarify what is meant by “System Description”?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: System Description is an overall description of the

Offeror's systems, website, and interfaces. This description shall briefly state the purpose of the system and the software. It should describe the general nature of the system and software. It may also summarize the history of system development, operation, and maintenance; identify users, developers, and support services; identify current and planned use and list other relevant documents.

43. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Will the Government consider allowing the text in the headers and footers to be 10-pt Times New Roman font?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: No, the Government will not change the font requirement.

44. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Accurate number of transactions (requirement flow) is critical to determining fixed fill [prices]. Based on historical flow of PROS IV and PROS V requirements, the 5-Year Base Period projected requirements identified in Section J, Attachment

5 Pricing Matrix spreadsheet, are extremely high. Specifically, for PROS VI a significant increase in the number of transactions is projected as follows: >50% in Supply Commercial

Transactions; >130% in Maintenance Commercial Transactions; >950% in Supply

Cancellations; and >150% in Maintenance. Is the USG expecting new foreign customers, Army requirements, Navy requirements, or some other projected changes that equate to these significant increases?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: As referenced at the Industry Day Briefing, the

Government anticipates a Prime Contractor to adequately support growth from foreign customers, Air Force, Army, and Navy.

45. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Accurate number of transaction (requirement flow) is critical to determine fixed fill [prices]. In addition to the 5-Year Base Period requirement increases, as compared to PROS IV and PROS V, the Section J, Attachment 5, Pricing Matrix spreadsheet reflects significant increases during each option period. Specifically, the USG is projecting an increase of approximately 58% from the first 5-year period average annual number of transactions to the Option Year 1 (Year 6) projected number of transactions. Then an additional 18% across the board increase during each Option Period (Years 7 – 10). Even with an extended transition period and slow initial flow of requirements / transactions, the increase from the Base Period to the Option Year 1 requirements are significant and reflect a dramatic increase in the number of anticipated transactions. After the Base Period, is the USG expecting new foreign customers, Army requirements, Navy requirements, or some other projected changes that equate to these significant increases? This is critical data since staffing and fixed fill [prices] depend on the number of commercial transactions projected.

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: As referenced at the Industry Day Briefing, the

Government anticipates a Prime Contractor to adequately support growth from foreign customers, Air Force, Army, and Navy.

46. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Does the Government intend that PROS VI will provide support for any aircraft that are 100% foreign manufactured not just the US-origin or hybrids?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Government intends to have a Prime Contractor that utilizes the applicable laws, policies, and contract to support the SA customers IAW

SAMM C4.4.3.2.

47. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: It is unclear as to how the prime contractor can effectively impact SS-2 to meet performance thresholds. This service summary is more indicative of the condition of repairable assets and vendor base performance. Will the

Government please clarify?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: This SS-2 encourages the offeror to attract a broad vendor base to support repairs of assets that a smaller vendor base may not be able to support. Additionally, the vendor base must have quality processes in place to provide failure reports for every BER or BPR item. Vendor or Offeror will deliver a Market

Research Report for every BER or BPR item.

48. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: The performance threshold for SS-1 is that it shall not exceed 1,000. However, it is generally accepted that a market with an HHI of less than 1,500 is considered a competitive marketplace, an HHI of 2,500 or greater is highly concentrated.

Considering the unique requirements and these generally accepted HHI definitions, would the

Government consider revising the SS-1 threshold to at least 1,500?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: No, the HHI thresholds were modified to develop a CCI based on PROS actuals and the competition received which impacted the quality of support.

49. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: SS-3 does not specify the type of cancellation;

however, refers to 20% or less which alludes to Contractor Cancellations. Please clarify SS-3.

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Government has amended SS-3 to clarify Contractor

Cancellations is the threshold.

50. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Will the USG define CRTB and RTB?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The terms are identified within the document, AFLCMC/WFK SECTION H PROS VI OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE

(OPI) (OCT 2021), and the Government has amended this document to replace

"Requisition" references with "Commercial Transactions." Please note CRTB and RTB have been changed to account for removal of “Requisition,” see the amendment document for changes.

51. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Based on our knowledge and understanding of previous PROS contracts, these incentives appear to be unachievable. Are the incentives based on historical data or some other objective measure?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Government based the OPI thresholds on market research and challenging yet reasonably obtainable stretch goals. If the offeror does not meet the OPI thresholds, a stretch goal, the offeror is not penalized.

52. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: This requirement does not state associated costs shall be incorporated into Fixed Fill [Prices]. Will the USG confirm how cost is to be recovered?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: PWS 2.1.4 is the parent paragraph of 2.1.4.7 and states that "All travel costs shall be incorporated into Fill Prices." The Government has amended the PWS to clarify this question.

53. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Unlimited rights are appropriate if this development is funded exclusively by the USG or customer. If marketing material is not funded by the USG or customer, the data should be furnished with Government Purpose Rights and not unlimited rights. Will the USG explain how the brand, USG design and marketing is to be funded?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Government reviewed PWS 2.1.5.1 and amended the paragraph to better capture the requirement and intent to differentiate the PROS VI program and brand from other generations of PROS.

54. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: PWS 2.1.6.3.7 requires the contractor to identify a list of vendors not eligible for solicitations and awards. This could lead to possible legal issues with the publicizing of poor performing companies to the general public as the Prime Contractor does not have the same protections that the USG has. Has the USG considered the legal aspects of this?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The requirement is not for publishing to the general public, there will be secure login capability for different profiles. The secure login will restrict the general public from viewing program sensitive information. PWS 2.1.6.3

Contractor PROS webpage shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

PWS 2.1.6.3.1 Secure Login Capability for user specific accounts in the following categories with distinct roles and permissions: USG/Contractor, Vendor, and Customer.

55. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Will the USG please clarify whether or not vendors are required to have a web presence? Some of the very small businesses do not have and maintain a website. [PWS] 2.9.3 also states the vendor may be off-ramped for not maintaining a Vendor webpage.

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: Yes, a website is required by the vendor or provided by the Offeror. The purpose is to provide market research to the SA customers to create efficiencies and reduce customer cancellations.

56. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Presently we understand there is a SAMIS modernization project in pre-acquisition planning stages – reference notice ID RFI- FA8630-21-

FMS. It appears the SAMIS interface requirements for the CTS to be developed for execution of

PROS VI is trying to anticipate the future state of the results of this SAMIS modernization. This would seem to present a moving target for contractors trying to develop an interface to a legacy system undergoing modernization. Does the USG anticipate a transition from current state interface at the startup of PROS VI or a communication interface that lends itself to

“requirements creep?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The requirement is to have an agile interface to the current system and the current system may be upgraded, requiring the same agile interface.

57. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Will the USG please clarify who is responsible to notify contractor of customer contact changes?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Offeror's CTS requires account login and manages contacting multiple parties. Example, SA customers could be able to register as new users and the Offeror could have an automated process with approved QAP. The approach by the Offeror can be proposed and evaluated as a strength IAW Section L and Section M.

58. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: It is our understanding that there is no requirement to provide hardware. Can the USG confirm that hardware is being referenced for helpdesk support or how the Contractor would provide help desk support for customer or vendor hardware?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Hardware support is to provide for any questions on

Commercial Transactions of supply or maintenance items.

59. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Will the USG please clarify if the Help Desk Support identified in the PWS is intended to replace the XQ/RQ process for country? Or is the Help Desk intended to provide support regarding the contractor’s CTS and its operation?

Also, will the USG please clarify which is the main repository of all communications: CTS, or

SAMIS, MISIL, CISIL?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: Yes, the Help Desk Support is intended to replace the

XQ/RQ process for country. Also, the Help Desk is intended to provide CTS software support. The CTS will provide an official record, automatically creating electronic file records for each transaction, and will be verified against SAMIS, MISIL, and CISIL.

60. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Will the USG please clarify whether all contractor personnel will require SAMIS access? Also, will the USG identify anticipated turnaround times for access approval?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: That is not possible as varying approaches to scale operations can be utilized by varying Offerors. System access can vary dependent on the volume, frequency, and accuracy of submitted DD-2875.

61. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Will the Government please clarify Tier level clearance required? Tier 1’s are not Secret clearances; they are Public Trust, and do not get resubmitted for periodic reinvestigations by the Contractor. Tier 3 is a Secret, which requires the periodic reinvestigations as noted in the PWS. CDRL A011 can only be accomplished with Tier 3, Secret.

USG AFSAC Security Assistance will be essential for Tier 1 statuses. Will the USG please clarify the security requirements for PROS VI?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Government has amended PWS 2.1.8.1.

62. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Will the Government accept the Center for

Development of Security Excellence, Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency

Cybersecurity Awareness training; as it addresses the requirement and does not require a CAC or

PKI?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: If an approach can be proposed and evaluated as a strength IAW Section L and Section M, then it can be incorporated into the contract at award.

63. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Will the Government please clarify where the classified storage area will be for “unexpected receipt of classified data or items” since there is no requirement to store classified material on this contract?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: PWS 2.1.8.6 Classified Material states that the

“Contractor shall ensure classified material is processed IAW appropriate USG regulations and directives…” meaning that the Contractor shall contact the appropriate authorities and dispositioning as requested.

64. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Will the Government please clarify ALL customer information data vs. Controlled Unclassified Information per DoD Instruction 5200.48, “Controlled Unclassified Information”, established DoD CUI policy which describes dissemination control and distribution statement markings?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The requirement is to mark customer information appropriately. If the approach can be proposed and evaluated as a strength IAW Section

L and Section M, then it can be incorporated into the contract at award.

65. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: PWS 2.1.9.1 Invoice Responsibility 2.1.9.1.1 states paying to vendor 30 days after receipt of a proper invoice. However 2.1.9.2.1 states contractor must submit invoices within 7 days after receipt of the vendor invoice. Will the USG consider changing the PWS 2.1.9.2.1 to: “Contractor shall electronically submit invoices within 7 days after receipt of the proper invoice or…”?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: If the approach can be proposed and evaluated as a strength IAW Section L and Section M, then it can be incorporated into the contract at award.

66. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: [PWS 2.1.9.2.4.1 states, “Contractor shall deliver the following reports: #3 Aging of Acceptance Documents – For each Commercial Transaction invoice received by and electronically administered by SMC during the quarter, but not acted on

(not rejected, accepted, or recalled by the Contractor) the Contractor shall provide the

Commercial Transaction number (DCN), shipment (or other identifying) number, Contractor https://securityawareness.usalearning.gov/cybersecurity/index.htm submittal date, and acceptance date/rejection date. #5 Time from Vendor submittal until payment and time from Contractor submittal until payment – for invoices received by and electronically administered by SMC the Contractor shall provide the Commercial Transaction number (DCN), shipment (or other identifying) number, Contractor submittal date, and acceptance date/rejection date.”]

[In reference to] #3 – Will the USG clarify how there would be a Contractor submittal date if the requisitions are aging?

[In reference to] #5 – Wouldn’t additional information be required in order to determine time-lapsed until payment such as payment date, vendor submittal date?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: #3 and #5 are in regards to PWS 2.1.9.2.4 "Contractor shall provide Financial Management (FM) reports to support the collection of financial metrics related to invoices." These reports are to support new standard operating procedures implemented by Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC) when Wide Area

Work Flow (WAWF) is not used. If an approach can be proposed and evaluated as a strength IAW Section L and Section M, then it can be incorporated into the contract at award.

67. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Will the USG confirm the anticipated timeframe or historical average time for payment from the USG to the Contractor for invoice submission?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: FAR 52.232-25 - Prompt Payment will be utilized for proper invoices and when applicable.

68. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: [The Percent of Payment Requests Paid report, referenced in PWS 2.1.9.2.4.1.6] implies there has historically been an issue of failure to meet

Prompt Payment Act timeframes. Will the USG confirm the historical USG invoice payment timeframe?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: These reports are to support new standard operating procedures implemented by Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC) when Wide Area

Work Flow (WAWF) is not used. If an approach can be proposed and evaluated as a strength IAW Section L and Section M, then it can be incorporated into the contract at award.

69. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: [PWS] 2.1.9.3.4 states the contractor shall only receive one fill [price] per Commercial Transaction and [PWS] 2.12.1 states the contractor shall invoice

Research/P&A for market analysis of alternative support on BER/BPR items. These statements appear to conflict or allow multiple invoices on BER/BPR requirements since there would potentially be a cancellation fill [price] and a Research/P&A [price] on BER/BPRs. Will the

USG confirm the invoicing requirement for BER/BPR orders?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Government has reviewed PWS 2.12.1 and amended the paragraph to clarify the requirement. The Contractor will only invoice for

Fill Price or Customer Cancelation.

70. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: As a 3PL provider, the prime contractor, may not be granted access to or be able to obtain proprietary technical data. Statements in PWS 2.1.10.1 seem to contradict each other. Specifically, the “shall” statement as follows: “Contractor shall obtain authorization to use or have access to proprietary technical data as required for the performance of this contract.” Will the USG consider modifying this “shall” statement?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: If an approach can be proposed and evaluated as a strength IAW Section L and Section M, then it can be incorporated into the contract at award.

71. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: Since the Gate 1 requirement requires a DCMA approved Contractor Purchasing System (CPS), it is understood that the CPS approved processes and procedures are to be utilized by the contractor as required by DCMA. The utilization of a

Customer Decision Authority (CDA) to allow the customer to select the vendor based on their needs conflicts with CPS processes and the fundamental basis for the contractor to have a CPS.

Will the USG explain how the contractor can utilize/comply with both the CPS and CDA processes?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The Offeror will have current a current CPS and the experience to utilize their CPS to meet the PROS VI requirements. The successful operation of the CPS experience only enhances the Offerors’ capability to successfully handle all risks and issues on PROS VI. The CDA is a contract requirement that allows

Customer to clearly determine “Best Value” and the Offeror will incorporate that determination into their processes to successfully meet the PROS VI requirements. The

Contractor Purchasing System Review Guidebook addresses “Best Value” determinations and may be helpful to review.

72. QUESTION Received 12 Nov 2021: [PWS 2.2.1] implies the vendor populates a BVDM form and does not provide an actual quote. It also allows proposal validity date adjustment without limitations. Not having firm vendor quote validity date should be controlled by the contract terms and not the vendor. Will the USG explain the rationale behind allowing the vendor to adjust the validity date?

ANSWER Posted 23 Nov 2021: The rationale is to require the Offeror to support both the

SA Customer and Vendor with quality processes that will improve the program. The

Offeror needs to create the environment to attract high quality vendors to support the SA

Customers, the SA Customers will select the vendor for award. This structure allows the vendor to monitor their open bids and in the event that the SA Customer has not made a decision, the vendor could adjust their validity time to keep them in the competition.