FA8650-13-R-4016-0001-Q As.doc

Solicitation FA8650-13-R-4016 AFRL/RYD Maintenance and Fabrication of Experimental Processing

And Test Equipment

Questions and Answers; Requests for Clarifications and Corrections 1.

Section B, Page 10: In paragraph B028 should CLINs 1001 and 2001 also be included?

ANSWER: Yes, CLINs 1001 and 2001 have been added to B028.

2.

Section B, Page 10: In paragraph B035 subparagraph (a) should CLINs 1002 and 2002 be included. If not should the amount in subparagraph (b) be $200,000?

ANSWER: Yes, CLINs 1002 and 2002 have been added to B035 and the amount is unchanged.

3.

Section F, Page 14: There are no schedules presented for CLINs 0001 and 0002. (Note that the schedule for CLIN 0002 was referenced in paragraph B035 on page 10 of the solicitation.) Will the government add these schedules for Delivery and Performance?

ANSWER: If you will note, the schedule for these CLINs is in the captured data of their information in Section B. B035 has been corrected to reference Section B in lieu of Section F.

4.

Section J, Attachment 1 entitled Performance Work Statement (PWS): There are several references in the PWS to other paragraphs or subsections which are either not in the document or are obviously not correction. Such references were made in PWS paragraphs 1.3.3, 1.3.5, 1.10.16.2.5 and in the Service Summary table on pages 22 and 23. Will the government correction these references?

ANSWER: Yes, the references have been corrected in the PWS. A revised PWS is attached to the Solicitation Amendment 0001.

5.

Section I, Page 23: It is our understanding that the subject effort is considered a Service Contract Act effort. If that is the case please add FAR clauses 52.222-40 and 52.222-43 and provide the current wage determination for the WPAFB area.

ANSWER: Yes, it is subject to the Service Contract Act and the above-mentioned clauses have been added. The latest Wage Determination 2005-2419 Rev. 16 dated 13 June 2012 has been included as an attachment to the solicitation. Should the Wage Determination be updated before award the latest one will be attached to the contract.

6. A Letter of Concern was submitted in regards to the solicitation evaluation procedures regarding price/costs. Since the Government has provided ceiling for the Travel, Materials/Hardware and Software CLINs, the question as to how we were looking at the indirect costs (for example: G&A or Material Handling). The concern was over a company having a higher indirect fee therefore less actual purchase dollars available to the government, where other companies with a lower fee would be able to purchase more for the program. The suggestion was to fairly evaluate the eventuality of making the purchases identified in CLINs 0004, 0005 and 0006 by amending the solicitation to have these fees broken out separately for the government’s evaluation.

ANSWER: After consideration of the above concern and suggestion, the government has added Section B Clause B059, “Cost Cap” and revised paragraphs 6.1.6.1 and 6.2.2 of Section L (see Amendment 0001). The Extended Pricing Worksheets have also been revised to capture this information and are attached to Amendment 0001.

7.

In Section L, paragraph 5.2 Early Proposal Information, it states “Past Performance Questionaire (PPQ) should be sent (by the offeror) to the organizations for which a performance assessment is requested early enough for the respondent to complete the PPQ and to forward it directly to the Contracting Officer (CO) not later than the day proposals are due.” In Attachment 3, Memorandum for Past Performance POC’s in paragraph 3 it states, “We need your written response NLT April 29, 2013.” Which statement is correct?

ANSWER: The PPQ sent by the Offerors to Organizations for a response are due on the date proposals are due. The letter was accomplished earlier than the solicitation was posted. The Memorandum has been changed and is attached to the Solicitation Amendment 0001.

8. In Section L, Table 2.2, Proposal Organization, it states that the page limit for Past Performance examples is “2 Pages Per Example” yet in section L, paragraph 5.1 it states “Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment #2 to the Solicitation” which is 4 pages long. What information from Attachment 2 is required in order to meet the 2 page limitation?

ANSWER: Section L, paragraph 5.1 has been revised to read “….containing past performance information in accordance with the Past Performance Questionnaire….” The Questionnaire is formatted for fill-in. Each offeror should be providing the same type of information as in their Past Performance Questionnaire except for: Section 1.A and 1.B, Section 3.A, 3.B, 3.C and 3.D and all of Section B except provide information for question #3.

9.

Is there a limitation on the number of Past Performances that can be used for Past Performance?

ANSWER: No, but all past performance information must meet the definitions of recent and relevant listed in Section M002, paragraph c(2)(a) to be evaluated.

10.

The evaluation criteria for Past Performance states, “In case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

It also states, “The past performance evaluation shall be evaluated on whether the offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort to be required.”

If an offeror’s record is deemed not relevant, this would mean that the offeror gets an Acceptable rating per the note in Table 2, Section M. How is the Government differentiating “Acceptable” and “Unacceptable” if “Not Relevant” is “Acceptable?”

ANSWER: An “Unacceptable” rating would be given for negative or unsatisfactory present/past performance.

11.

Table 1 of the Technical Ratings, Subfactor 1.1 - Management, Measure of Merit, paragraph b) states “b) the offeror’s proposal shows the technical expertise and educational background required to staff and manage the effort, citing examples of experience as a prime contractor providing similar support.”

This statement seems to indicate that even if Past Performance is deemed “Acceptable” because it is not relevant enough, it would be considered “Unacceptable” in the Technical Volume.

ANSWER: This Subfactor is looking more at the offeror’s ability to manage the program thru the types of experience they have had as a prime contractor.

12.

Paragraph 7.4.4 instructs us to provide all Associate Contractor Agreements for this requirement. Who are these Associate Contractor Agreements with?

ANSWER: Associate Contractor Agreements” (ACAs) are agreements between contractors working on government contract projects that specify requirements for them to share information, data, technical knowledge, expertise, or resources.

13.

Paragraph 7.3.1 states that “contractors must also provide a copy of their Safety and Health Plan and corresponding site checklist with their proposal…” It also states “Applicable contractors are required to submit three years of TCIR/DART data with their proposal.

What volume do these documents go into and do they count against the page count?

ANSWER: These would be in volume V, Contract Documentation and no, they do not count against the page count.

14. Section L indicates available program funding of $24M while the USAF provided pricing template is pre-filled with Material/ODC dollars which total $23.8M - but that is before any labor cost. This implies that there is only about $.2M available for FFP labor. Is a clarification available to help correlate the two numbers?

ANSWER: The pre-filled amounts are ceilings based on historical data of program pricing.

15.

Kindly confirm that there is no Davis Bacon content in the project staffing, and that the current workforce is not covered under a collective bargaining agreement.

ANSWER: There is no Davis Bacon content and none of the workforce is covered under a collective bargaining agreement.

16. In section L, paragraph 2.2.1.1(a) it states that, “Pages will be double-spaced and one sided.” Please clarify if “double spaced” is intended.

ANSWER: Yes, double spaced is intended.

17.

In reviewing the RFP for the referenced effort, it was noted in Section L055, paragraph 1.1 Budget/Funding Information that FY13 funding was $3,125K. Can you verify that is the right amount?

ANSWER: Yes that is correct; FY13 funding is $3,125K.

18.

Also, at Table 2-2 - Proposal Organization under “copies” heading, is that to mean 2 CDs for each volume or should all volumes be on each CD?

ANSWER: All volumes should be on 1 CD (if possible) and we want 2 copies of that CD.

19. And in Section K - Representations, Certifications and other statements of offerors, should we pull this information from the SAM database and submit or should we complete all of Section K?

ANSWER: Section K is to be filled out and completed by each offeror. The contracting office will pull the ORCA from SAM.

20.

Labor category names can mean different things to different organizations. For example, we are not sure if the category Engineering Tech V is technician position requiring lab experience or an engineering position requiring lab experience and an engineering degree. Is it possible to get a complete job description of these labor categories to eliminate any potential bidding confusion: Program Manager, Engineering Tech V, Engineering Tech II, Purchasing Specialist, Supply Technician.

ANSWER: We do not have job descriptions other than the task descriptions supplied by the PWS. Yes, we are aware that there are some differences between offerors, however, it is the responsibility of each offeror to read the requirement and to propose the positions that they would use to accomplish the tasks. The positions that we have listed are historical and provided for your information.

21.

Are the resumes of current staff available for review.

ANSWER: The resumes of current staff are not available from the program office.

22.

Surge labor is allocated a 600K contract ceiling and 24,480 estimated hours. Does this imply that the average fully loaded hourly rate expected is $24.51/hour? If not, please explain how the total estimated hours and contract ceiling values are reconciled.

ANSWER: The $600K is the Government’s ceiling amount for Surge Labor; the hours are estimated from historical data and may be more or less each year.

23.

Is there written standard operating procedures in place for all equipment? If so will we have access to them?

ANSWER: All pieces of equipment have the manufacturer's technical operating manuals available for them, if they are available from the manufacturer. In some cases, there are local recipes for specific fabrication processes. This information will be available to the performer when it is required. In cases where written standard operating procedures do not exist, it is expected that the performer will understand and follow common standard operating procedures for semiconductor fabrication in a cleanroom environment.

24.

Are there any written standard wafer fabrication recipes in place for any wafer fab processes? If so will we have access to them?

ANSWER: Most of our wafer fabrication processes have written recipes (process followers/ travelers). The performer will have access to these recipes when needed.

25.

Are there written schedules and procedures in place for routine equipment maintenance? If so will we have access to them?

ANSWER: There are written schedules and procedures in place for routine equipment maintenance. The performer will have access to these schedules and procedures.

26.

Are there written protocols in place for how people outside the waferfab/test areas submit work requests to the technical staff for completion of that work? If so will we have access to them?

ANSWER: Outside work requests are coordinated through the appropriate Government laboratory manager. The performer coordinates with the laboratory manager to determine the best approach to complete the requested work.

27.

Have written equipment training protocols been established to gain access to waferfab/test equipment? If so will we have access to them?

ANSWER: Training protocols have been established for laboratory access and laboratory equipment. The performer will have access to this information.

28.

Is there any type of fabrication/test work order tracking system in place so people outside the fab/test area can gain visibility into how requested work is proceeding? If so will we access to this system?

ANSWER: Outside work requests are coordinated through the appropriate Government laboratory manager. There is no formal work-order process or tracking system. Progress on requested work may be reported by the performer directly to the requestor, or through the Government laboratory manager.

29.

As an average per week, how many wafer fab work requests are generated and what is the average time per request for completion of this work?

ANSWER: The number of requests per week and the time to complete each request can vary significantly from week to week. Each wafer lot is unique because of the research mission of the organization. On average, the support staff for the device fabrication laboratory spends 40-50 hours per week running fabrication processes.

30.

As an average per week, how many test work requests are generated and what is the average time per request for completion of this work?

ANSWER: The number of requests per week and the time to complete each request can vary significantly from week to week. Each test requirement is unique because of the research mission of the organization. On average, the support staff for the DC/RF test laboratory spends 20-25 hours per week running tests.

31.

Are there any standard waferfab design rules currently in place? If so what are they?

ANSWERS: The performer will not be involved in work that requires access to design rules.

32.

Is there an AFRL standard CAD package for mask layout with built in design rule checking or layout verification in the case of integrated circuit design?

ANSWER: The performer will not be involved in mask layout or design rule checking.

33.

Since this effort involves hazardous materials, will there be a requirement to have special insurance in addition to our standard insurance?

ANSWER: The solicitation includes the FAR Clauses 52.228-05 and 52.228-07. The PWS has been revised to include the insurance requirements for the labs. Paragraph 1.7.23 was added to the PWS (see Solicitation Amendment 0001 Attachment 1).

34.

Is there a set format our proposal for this solicitation should be in?

ANSWER: Section L055, Instructions To Offerors (ITO) and Proposal Preparation, gives the instructions for preparing and submitting the proposals. Specifically, starting at paragraph 2.2 you will find instructions for the format.

35.

The RFP (Paragraph M002.b.2 - Description of Merit for Subfactor 1.2 - Staffing) still references a millimeter-wave testing facility. This was changed to RF Laboratory in the PWS. Both documents should refer to RF laboratory.

ANSWER: Section M paragraph M002.b.2 has corrected the term “millimeter-wave testing facility” to read “RF Laboratory”.

36.

Paragraph 1.10.11.3 states that the contractor shall design and provide at the start of the first operational performance period (if there is no orientation period) a safety plan for the protection of Government facilities and property. However, the RFP Paragraph L055.7.3.1 instructs us to provide a Safety and Hazard Plan as well as a Checklist with the proposal. There is no CDRL for a Safety or Safety and Hazard Plan. Can the Government more clearly define what we are to provide and when?

ANSWER: Paragraph 1.10.11 has been deleted (including 1.10.11.3) and replaced with a new paragraph 1.10.11. The Safety plan and information that were in this section was taken care of by the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) requirement. Therefore, the information for the VPP requirement has been incorporated as the new section paragraph 1.10.11.

37.

When our finance people started working the Ext-Price-Wksheet(1) they found that some of the cells would not accept data that was being cut and pasted and in fact they got an alert saying that these cells were “Read Only.” Could you please clarify? Also is it possible to validate the formula’s contained in the other cells.

ANSWER: Those cells are “Read Only” because the formula takes the amounts from the other sheets cells (Labor, Travel, etc.) and totals them on the page 1 - Summary page. You will find that there are several cells set up in this format.

38.

Should the Voluntary Protection Plan (VPP) be submitted w/our proposal or is it submitted after award?

ANSWER: The VPP is submitted with your proposal.