Batch 1 - Official RFP Questions and Responses.pdf

# Suggestions, Questions, & Comments from Industry Government Response

The scope of work reference to the Digital Trinity is a best confusing. We understand the concepts at a high level but it is unclear as to how we show capability in at least one area for each of the three legs of this concept. The RFQ gives some suggestions but it seems like we would just have to take our best shot at what is being asked and cross our fingers. For example, could the fact that we use CAD models and NC programming software satisfy #1? Does our use of manufacturing simulation software and the fact that we have a DCA representative on site fulfill the requirement for agile processes? Does our use of commercially available software fulfill #3? In general, we’d like to know how strict the evaluation process will be on all elements of the

Digital Trinity

The DoD is quickly moving to Digital Acquisition in all forms. The Government provided reference documents to explain Digital Trinity and Government

Architecture in paragraph 2 of the SOO. The Government expects that offerors provide examples of experience (or plans in the form of a roadmap) which offerors are moving towards weapon development and support in a digital, agile, and open systems environment.

If I as the prime or any of my subs do not have any actual or perceived OCI then I do not need to include an OCI mitigation plan with my proposal submittal, is this the correct understanding? Looking at L‐2.4.4, I am not sure if an OCI mitigation plan is required only if an Offeror identifies an actual or perceived OCI at the IDIQ or if a plan is required for all Offerors regardless if they identify and actual or perceived OCI at the

IDIQ.

Please submit the corporate plan with your proposal to facilitate expedited transition to follow on work. Follow‐on work under this IDIQ may require corporate level OCI plans specific to program requirements of the follow‐on work.

Quick question regarding the submittal of questions for the subject line RFP. Are we required to use SAFE SITE to deliver questions? If so can you provide a Request Code.

The Government will accept questions to the RFP or proposals in multiple ways at the offeror's discretion. The options are to submit via email at stephen.gilligan.3@us.af.mil and/or cameron.white.8@us.af.mil OR by

DoDSAFE. The Government prefers submission by email.

The verbiage in paragraph L‐5 Subcontracting Plan requires the subcontracting goals be stated in terms of percentage of subcontracted value (consistent with FAR 52.219‐

9, Alternate II). The table L‐5.1 states this in terms of “total contract value”. Please confirm that the DoD goals listed in Section L‐5 are based on the total subcontracted value, and the headings in table L‐5.1 should be “total subcontracted value” instead of

“total contract value”.

The Government will correct the language in Section L for consistency. The correct language should be "total subcontracted value".

Proposal Response Guide restricts the printing ability for the offeror. For archival/auditing purposes, the offeror needs the ability to print the hard copy

Proposal Response Guide for readability and visual review for all parties. Please advise.

The Government will not provide a printable version of this document at this time, to maintain consistency between offerors.

Proposal Response Guide template defaults to the Helvetica font style. The offeror recommends that the font size remains 12 point with the font style Times Roman.

Please advise.

The Government will not alter the Proposal Response Guide at this time.

Font style or size, and space limitations within the Proposal Reponses Guide are ample and equal for all offerors.

Solicitation Reference: L‐1.3.d.

Recommendation: It is strongly recommended the Government update the instructions to omit Glossary of all abbreviations from the page limits set within Table

L‐1.3. Is it suggested the Government allow Glossaries to be submitted separately as not to limit the critical and more relevant discussions within the proposal response.

The Government provides an extra page at the end of each section within the

Proposal Response Guide to use at the offeror's discretion. The Government believes there is ample space to meet the requirements of this initial IDIQ award.

Attachment 5 states, “To be eligible for award, total proposed price must equal

$1000.” Please confirm, that although the Government has identified this acquisition as LPTA, the Government is expecting all Offerors to provide a price of $1,000? Will an

Offeror that submits a price less than $1,000 be deemed unawardable?

Total proposed price must equal $1,000.00 USD. Offerors who submit prices for greater than or less than $1,000.00 USD will not receive an award.

Section L.1‐13 allocates 11 pages for Subfactor A. The EWAAC Proposal Response guide states “Offerors shall use pages 8‐11 of this guide if needed to supplement their current capabilities listed above and establish a roadmap for gaining Digital Trinity competence within two (2) years or less in accordance with Section M, paragraphs 3.0 and 3.1.”

Will the Government please allow offerors that are not providing a roadmap to use the entire 11‐page allocation to address the Digital Trinity elements in Section M‐3.1

Subfactor A: Digital Trinity Capabilities?

Offerors are encouraged to use all available space on the Proposal Response

Guide at the offeror's discretion. The Government encourages offerors to self identify ANY shortfalls, weaknesses, immature processes, and risks in their

Digital Trinity capabilities, and submit a plan and schedule at addressing those. The Government will evaluate offeror's submissions in the context of which section the data is submitted.

The EWAAC Proposal Response Guide is password protected and does not allow offerors to modify. Given that the page limits allowed in RFP Section L.1‐13, will the

Government please remove the requirements text from pages 1 and 12 to allow offerors the full use of the allotted page count?

The Government provides an extra page at the end of each section within the

Proposal Response Guide to use at the offeror's discretion. The Government believes there is ample space to meet the requirements of this initial IDIQ award. The Government will not alter nor allow offerors to alter the

Proposal Response Guide. Font style or size, and space limitations within the

Proposal Reponses Guide are ample and equal for all offerors.

In section L‐4.2.1, the use of the grammatical conjunction “or” before “Cost

Accounting Standards (CAS) Disclosure Statement” suggests that the requirement to provide a Disclosure Statement is conditional. Additionally, section L‐4.2.5 states “The

Offeror shall provide a copy of the most recent approved CAS Disclosure statement, if applicable. Could the Government clarify the condition(s) under which contractors are required to provide their CAS Disclosure Statement?

The Government prefers submission of CAS Disclosure statements with the initial proposals, if applicable to the offeror, or provide evidence in the form of correspondence that the offeror is in the process of obtaining. Lack of at the IDIQ level may prevent offerors from competing for follow‐on cost‐type work, until CAS Disclosure statements are received.

It is common for Government Procurement Offices to rely on the cognizant DCMA contracting officers to administer contractor Disclosure Statements. This reduces administrative burden for the Procurement Office and minimizes unnecessary distribution of contractor CAS Disclosure Statements. Would the Government consider removing the requirement to provide the CAS Disclosure Statement, and, instead, rely on the cognizant DCMA team to address questions/concerns regarding contractor CAS

Disclosure Statements?

The Government prefers submission of CAS Disclosure statements with the initial proposals, if applicable to the offeror, or provide evidence in the form of correspondence that the offeror is in the process of obtaining. Lack of at the IDIQ level may prevent offerors from competing for follow‐on cost‐type work, until CAS Disclosure statements are received.

Table L‐5.1 indicates Small Business Subcontracting Goals are a percentage of the Total

Contract Value, however in the first paragraph, it indicates Small Business subcontracting goals must be expressed in terms of a percentage of subcontracted value. Please confirm that Small Business Subcontracting goals are based off the total subcontracted value.

The Government will correct the language in Section L for consistency. The correct language should be "total subcontracted value".

Will the Government allow multiple awards to a single Contractor for this RFP, i.e.

different divisions / CAGE codes within the same company?

The Proposal Response Guide has fields for offerors to identify all relevant division's CAGE codes for each entity. The Government intends to potentially award only one $1,000.00 USD contract to each offeror per proposal, and will not allow multiple proposals per contractor/entity. To ease in submissions for follow‐on work under the IDIQ, the Government will issue separate no‐ cost Delivery Orders to all relevant CAGE codes identified within each proposal. This will enable divisions to be considered for follow‐on work independent of the parent company as needed.

Per L‐2.4.4, If an offeror confirms that there is no existing or potential conflicts of interest, and states so in the proposal, is a draft OCI plan required to be submitted with the proposal for the EWAAC IDIQ? Question# 50 and #88 of the draft Q&A states

“No”; however, this appears to conflict with guidance provided for Question #84.

Please submit the corporate plan with your proposal to facilitate expedited transition to follow on work. Follow‐on work under this IDIQ may require corporate level OCI plans specific to program requirements of the follow‐on work.

Can an editable version of attachment 4 be provided? If not, are offerors allowed to insert pictures and graphics into the locked PDF file?

Offerors are encouraged to use all available space on the Proposal Response

Guide at the offeror's discretion. However, the Government does not wish to receive graphics, pictures, flowcharts, etc. in the proposal submission. The

Proposal Response Guide fields are formatted for a uniform submission between offerors and will not allow images or graphics.

Section L2.4.1.1 mentions Block 19A, B and C of the SF33. Should this section say blocks 15 A, B and C instead of 19?

The Government will correct the language in Section L through an amendment.

SF33 Section 9 still mentions that proposals are due on XX July 2021. Will and updated

SF33 be provided with the correct proposal due date.

The Government will correct the SF33 through an amendment. The correct close date is 9 August 2021.