FA8650-22-S-5007 Questions Answers 20 Dec 21.pdf

BAA FA8650-22-S-5007 Amd. 01 (Questions & Answers)

BAA FA8650-22-S-5007 Amendment 01

Questions and Answers

Materials Research and Survivability Studies II (MaRSS II)

20 December 2021

Agency Name: Air Force Research Laboratory, AFRL/RX Materials and Manufacturing Directorate

Broad Agency Announcement Title: Materials Research and Survivability Studies II (MaRSS II)

Broad Agency Announcement Type: Amendment 01

Broad Agency Announcement Number: BAA FA8650-22-S-5007

Technical POC’s:

John Eric, Program Manager, e-mail: John.Eric@us.af.mil or

Michael Anderson, AFRL/RXAP, e-mail: michael.anderson.100@us.af.mil

Contracting POC’s:

Gary Victor, Contract Negotiator, e-mail: Gary.Victor@us.af.mil (phone:

937-602-7480) or

Mark Merrifield, Contracting Officer, e-mail: Mark.Merrifield@us.af.mil (phone: 937-214-3773)

Address any questions about this Amendment to the points of contact listed above.

The purpose of this amendment is to execute the following changes:

Q1) The government states (Overview), "anticipates awarding 2 or more awards". However, if one offeror achieves scientific peer review of both Task Order (TO) proposals that is superior to any others (V.2), even if multiple offerors are "Selectable" (V.3.a) would or could only one IDIQ be awarded?

Response: In the event a peer or scientific review by the government for proposals (Step 2 of the BAA) at the level of the Basic ID/IQ Contract and both task orders is determined to be superior to other offerors, and is deemed "Selectable", then it is possible that only one ID/IQ could be awarded.

Q2) The overall (Basic/ID/IQ level) effort is stated to be 87 months, however in II.2 (pg 9), the Basic Contract funding budget only reflects between 60-72 months mailto:John.Eric@us.af.mil mailto:Gary.Victor@us.af.mil mailto:Mark.Merrifield@us.af.mil of funding. Historically, the government would not fund R&D activity so far in advance as to cover the gap between these two timeframes. Please clarify or explain the discrepancy.

Response: The overall period of performance of 87 months for the entire length of the program is correct. This reflects an additional 15 months of performance to cover additional research time.

Q3) Please review, update, or confirm that the building numbers listed are accurate and complete for containing all the labs and work space necessary for the effort.

Response: The correct references to the building numbers for base support at Wright-Patterson AFB include the following: 651, 652, 653, 654, 71, and 1621. Bldg. 1621 was formerly identified as Bldg. 71A, which is part of the LHMEL complex.

Q4) The two initial TOs to be awarded with the ID/IQ do not total the initially (FY22/23) budget. Please explain the process and timing that the government anticipates for solicitation and award of subsequent TOs, such that we can ensure a responsive management approach at the ID/IQ level.

Response: The budget amounts for FY 22/FY 23 for the Basic ID/IQ Contract do not match the budget amounts for the initial task orders (TOs 0001 and 0002) for the same period. The difference is based on additional task orders that are expected to be awarded subsequent to the initial two orders in this solicitation.

In addition, the process and timing for solicitation and award of subsequent task orders is dependent upon agency need, future budgets, and funding.

Q5) The two initial TOs have estimated cost of $20M; is $20M a cap for any TO be executed under this effort?

Response: The maximum dollar amount for any task order awarded under the Basic ID/IQ is $20M.

Q6) The government invites multiple white papers to be submitted by one offeror

- will the government treat the white papers from the same offeror individually (i.e. evaluating one without consideration of another), or will the government consider them cumulatively (i.e. the 'best' points from each of the responses from one offeror)?

Response: The purpose and intention of the BAA is to treat each white paper individually.

Q7) The government estimates 21 days from the white paper due date (18 January) to notify offerors of their disposition and request (Step 2) proposals, approximately 08 February. Subsequently, (page 22, VI.1), the government states an intention of notifying offerors of the award recommendation approximately 30 April. This allows for about 73 days for receipt and evaluation of Step 2 proposals. How long does the government anticipate providing for the offeror to deliver the Step 2 proposal once requested?

Response: The government anticipates a period of 30 calendar days for the offeror to submit a proposal (pursuant to Step 2 of the BAA).

Q8) Please clarify or confirm the White Paper volume format: Are all 3 White Papers to be separate files, each with a cover page (i.e. leaving 4 pages of response for the IDIQ, and 2 pages for each TO)? Or is it one volume, with one Cover Page, and each white paper being a separate section under that cover page (i.e. leaving 4 pages of response for the IDIQ, but 3 pages of response for each TO)?

Response: Each white paper is based on one volume consisting of a 5-page (cover page included) segment for the Basic ID/IQ Contract + 5 pages for each task order.

Q9) Please confirm that the Section A content of the white paper is the content to be included in the Cover Page.

Response: This confirms the contents of Section A of the White Paper shall comprise the content to be included in the Cover Page, which shall be housed in the area of the Basic Contract.

Q10) The end of (1) includes "Add the following information;", but then runs on to (2), (3), and (4). Please clarify that (2), (3), and (4) are additional lines that should be inclusive of the items noted in (1), and should (or should not) also be part of the Cover Page per the prior question.

Response: Sections (2), (3), & (4) are additional lines and are inclusive of the items noted in (1). Section A information shall be comprised as the Cover Page.

Q11) Items (2) and (3) appear similar/same as items e., and (4) the same as f.

Please clarify that they are or are not the same requirement.

Response: The content associated with Section C (Item 2) (Technical) is also associated with Item e. Similarly, the content associated with Section D (Item 3) (Cost/Rough Order of Magnitude) is also associated with Item f.

Q12) The government states the Technical Portion "may also include any proposed deliverables". The government has provided a list of deliverables (page 4, I.3). Please confirm that the government would find the response sufficient in this regard if the White Paper response referred to the section I.3 list as the intended deliverables, with exceptions or additions further specified by the offeror.

Response: A white paper making a reference to the list of CDRL data deliverables with exceptions or additions specified by the offeror is acceptable.

Q13) Will the government consider increasing the page count for the TO1 and TO2 SOWs? The limitation of 5 pages each, double-spaced, appears insufficient given that the government's SOO for each task is notably longer.

Response: The page count for each of the task orders is changed from three (3) to five (5) pages.

Q14) It is stated in the intro paragraph 3.d.(2) that "All direct costs… should be provided by contractor fiscal year (CF). Detailed element breakdowns by Government Fiscal Year or calendar year are not required." It is stated in 3.d.(2).j, "Offerors should include a project funding profile by Government Fiscal Year (GFY). Please clarify/confirm that all costs, and thus funding requirements, should be provided only by CFY, by GFY, or by both.

Response: All proposed costs shall be stated by calendar year.

Q15) If there is any specific subset of work expected to be local/on-site, i.e. in the scope of testing, modeling, analysis, design, fabrication (sic). For example, would testing be required to be on-site, whereas modeling/analysis could be off-site?

Response: This is an on-site contract and that a portion of this work will be conducted at WPAFB.

Q16) Are you able to provide specifics on which items as located in AFRL/RXAP laboratories will be required?

Response: No specific list of items is available, however, laboratory space could be made available if it matches the base support requested by the offeror.

Q17) It appears this contract will be an ID/IQ contract. Does AFRL have a small business in Dayton identified who will run this ID/IQ like in previous efforts?

Response: As this Announcement has not culminated in an award, the Air Force cannot speculate nor make any decision on who will be the primary contractors for the proposed ID/IQ(s).

Q18) Does an offeror have to bid both task orders, or bid just one of the task orders under this ID/IQ?

Response: In order to be considered for an ID/IQ award (pursuant to Step 2 of the BAA), an offeror must submit a proposal for the overarching Basic ID/IQ and for both task orders in this Announcement.

Q19) Is all of the section A content (a full half page) required in the 3-page task order white papers, or only in the 5-page basic white paper?

Response: The placeholder for the Section A content of the White Papers shall constitute the Cover Page, which shall be housed in the area of the Basic Contract (not necessary for the task orders). As mentioned in the response for Question 9 of this document, the page count for the task orders is hereby increased from three (3) pages to five (5) pages.

Outside of the changes documented herein, no other changes are being accomplished by this Amendment to the subject BAA.