SMORS_2016Dec_RFP_Industry_CRM_v01_12Jan2017.pdf

FA8723‐17‐R‐0001 ‐ Govt. Response to Industry #2

Line Doc/Atch Paragraph/ Comment Justification/Rationale Government Response Action Date Released ID Item to Industry

F0006, F0007, F0010, F0011, F0012 and F0013 work statement s

Appendix C

Appendix C in the work statements for the indicated orders provides mappings from work statement paragraph to CLIN type which are not discrete. For instance, in F0007, many of the "CLIN type" cells have two footnote references ‐ one referencing CLIN 0001 and another referencing CLIN 0002. These CLINS both have the same POP so the offerors are not able to determine how to segregate the hours between the two CLINs. Please provide clarification on how the hours should be spread between the CLINs or make the CLIN unique at the PWS paragraph level.

Without clear direction or description on how to allocate between CLINs, Offerors may be non‐ compliant.

For DOs F0006 and F0007, the Descriptive Data for CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 in each order state the CLINs are for developing and delivering performance analysis products and developing and delivering Update Regression Test products respectively. Additionally, the sub‐paragraphs in Section L, paragraph 9.2.7 address the delivery date for the recommended changes to the Government‐controlled baseline, followed by a 60‐day approval period and then the contractor starting to implement the approved changes. Finally, paragraph 9.3.6.2 instructs offerors to explain allocations of work to multiple CLINs within a single BOE. As a result, the Government expects offerors to assign work to the appropriate CLINs based on when the work is being accomplished.

For F0010, F0011, F0012 and F0013, the Government's expectation is similar. The Descriptive Data for the CLINs identifies the general tasks to be accomplished under each CLIN. Additionally, the sub‐paragraphs in Section L, paragraph 10 addressing these Orders instruct offerors to propose delivery dates for each of the CLINs. Again, in preparing the BOEs for these orders, Section L instructs offerors to explain allocations of work to multiple CLINs within a single BOE. Finally, for these orders, the SOW Appendix C tables show the split between the Requirements Analysis CLIN (0001) and the Solution Development and Deployment CLIN (1001) as being after the System Functional Review phase.

None 1/13/2017

Printed: 1/12/2017 5:01 PM 1 of 10 File: SMORS_2016Dec_RFP_Industry_CRM_v01.xlsx

ID Item to Industry

F0002 and F0003

PWS

19.0

The ability to plan and estimate cost for Transition Phase‐Out is dependent upon unknown details of the SMORS Contract Follow‐on Contractor's Transition Phase‐In Plan. Dependencies on the Phase‐In Plan include (but are not limited to):

‐ Proposed phasing of assumption of responsibility of tasks/areas across F0002 & F0003 ‐ Physical location of Follow‐On Contractor's Facility ‐ Technical infrastructure plan (equipment, tools, formats) for receiving data (documents, tools, databases)

Recommend labor estimates and cost required for PWS 19.0 activities be excluded from the submitted proposal.

Without the details of the SMORS Follow‐On Contractor's Phase‐In Plan, there are many impacts to developing the proposal, including, but not limited to:

‐ Understanding the proposed phasing of assumption of responsibility across the final three months of F0002 & F0003.

‐ Understanding the proposed place of responsibility transfer during the final months of phase‐out ‐ Unable to estimate labor, costs, and travel to ship, transfer, and install various systems located at the outgoing contractor's facility such as DMTS, SSMTS, etc. without knowing the physical location of Follow‐ On Contractor's Facility ‐ Unable to estimate labor for preparation and transfer of depot and sustainment databases without understanding the destination infrastructure, tools, and formats.

While offerors will not know what the follow‐on contractor's Transition‐in plan will be, the Government asks that offerors utilize:

1. The bidding assumptions in Section L, paragraph

9.2.7.6.2 for BPP and PARCS Transition Out, and

2. BPP Sustainment PWS Section 19 and PARCS Sustainment PWS Section 19 to generate labor and estimates.

The Government understands the question regarding the challenging nature in estimating Transtion‐out, however it is important this portion be estimated to obtain a clear understanding of each offerors' approach.

None 1/13/2017

F0006, F0007, F0009 and F0010 work statement s

4.1.2.1.1

Work statement of the indicated orders have reference data that is not called out ‐‐ "All utilities in Government facilities, identified in paragraph Error!

Reference source not found."

Need to know which facilities have been identified.

There is a MSWord link error in the identified documents that needs to be fixed.

The Government will correct the work statements in an amendment to the RFP.

1/13/2017

23 Sect L 9.2.7.6.2

PARCS Sustainment TO (F0003) Option Period 4 CLIN 4004 has travel dollars to propose identified as $49,06357,008. Please confirm this should be $49,063 which also matches the amount identified in Attachment 14.

Clean up action The "57,008" portion was to have been replaced by "49,063." The "57,008" portion has been deleted.

The extraneous text has been deleted from Section L.

1/13/2017

24 Sect L 9.2.5

Section L, Paragraph 9.2.5 states all indirect rates, to include cost of money, shall be rounded to the third digit after the decimal when the factor is expressed as a percentage. Many companies have FPRA’s or FPRP’s that are submitted to and approved by the Government. Altering these rates may affect the validity of these rates.

If a company has DCMA‐approved rates with a higher precision and these rates are built into the approved estimating system and are supposed to be used in preparing proposals, using a lower precision could cause confusion in the proposal audit phase and the rates will not match the Forward Pricing rates.

Accepted. The paragraph has been revised to allow approved rates to be used.

The new sentence that states, “If any such factors are covered by Government‐approved agreements (e.g., Forward Pricing Rate Agreements or Proposals), the offeror shall use the approved factors covered by these agreements” has been added to the end of Section L, paragraph 9.2.5.

1/13/2017

Printed: 1/12/2017 5:01 PM 2 of 10 File: SMORS_2016Dec_RFP_Industry_CRM_v01.xlsx

ID Item to Industry

25 F0001 n/a

Please provide the definition of the Depot Support Suite and how it relates to the PARCS Classified Lab, the Engineering Work Station, and BMEWSPC/DOORS Lab.

In addition please add a floor plan for the non‐ mission system development and test environments located in the incumbent contractor's facility to the bidders' library data.

Definition of the Depot Support Suite is needed to scope effort.

The Government acknowledges the error in the work statement, causing confusion of the Depot Support Suite and other non‐mission system development and test environments.

The Depot Support Suite is a separate subsystem that is part of the BPP SPA.

Bidders can reference the drawing tree, R104129, at …/10/10/10/Engineering Drawing Trees, and the reference data for the Depot Support Suite at .../20/10/10/Non_Mission_Sys_Dev_Test_Environments/ Depot Support Suite.

The Government added available floor plan information to the bidders' library on 1/4/2017.

1/13/2017

F0001 work statement

5.10.1.2.15.

1.3

Requirement, numbered item 6, states "Accept sustainment responsibility for the BMEWSPC/DOORS Lab upon completion of Depot Support Suite testing by the Incumbent contractor."

Please clarify the relationship of the BMEWSPC/DOORS Lab to the Depot Support Suite.

It is unclear if the Depot Support Suite is part of BMEWSPC/DOORS Lab.

The Government acknowledges the error in the work statement, causing confusion of the Depot Support Suite and other non‐mission system development and test environments. The Depot Support suite and the BMEWSPC/DOORS Lab are separate subsystems within the BPP SPA, according to the BPP SPA Engineering Drawing Tree, R104129.

The Government will correct the work statements in an amendment to the RFP.

1/13/2017

F0001 work statement

5.10.1.2.16.

1.3

Requirement, numbered item 6, states "Accept sustainment responsibility for the Engineering Work Station System upon completion of Depot Support Suite testing by the Incumbent contractor."

Please clarify the relationship of the Engineering Work Station System to the Depot Support Suite.

It is unclear if the Depot Support Suite is part of the Engineering Work Station System.

The Government acknowledges the error in the work statement, causing confusion of the Depot Support Suite and other non‐mission system development and test environments. The Depot Support suite and the Engineering Work Station System are separate subsystems within the BPP SPA, according to the BPP SPA Engineering Drawing Tree, R104129.

The Government will correct the work statements in an amendment to the RFP.

1/13/2017

F0001 work statement

5.10.1.2.17.

1.3

Requirement, numbered item 6, states "Accept sustainment responsibility for the PARCS Classified Lab upon completion of Depot Support Suite testing by the Incumbent contractor."

Please clarify the relationship of the PARCS Classified Lab to the Depot Support Suite.

It is unclear if the Depot Support Suite is part of the PARCS Classified Lab.

The Government acknowledges the error in the work statement, causing confusion of the Depot Support Suite and other non‐mission system development and test environments. The Depot Support suite and the PARCS Classified Lab are separate BPP and PARCS non‐mission system development and test environments.

The Government will correct the work statements in an amendment to the RFP.

Printed: 1/12/2017 5:01 PM 3 of 10 File: SMORS_2016Dec_RFP_Industry_CRM_v01.xlsx

ID Item to Industry

29 Sect L 10.5.2.3

FAR 52.217‐8 states, "The Government may require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract.

These rates may be adjusted only as a result of revisions to prevailing labor rates provided by the Secretary of Labor." Section L, paragraph 10.5.2.3, 10.6.2.3, 10.7.2.3 and 10.8.2.3 state, "In developing the costs/prices for the OTES CLINs, the offeror shall use the Sustainment OY4 rates per FAR 52.217‐8."

However, there are no rates specified for OY4 and offerors are not instructed to propose rates for this period.

Please confirm that the extension is to be priced per the FPRP since no rates are specified in the contract for that time period.

Requirement is 52.217‐8 does not apply since there are no rates specified in the contract. Using FPRP is consistent with CPIF contract type pricing rules and represents the funding level necessary for that period of performance. Since the values are evaluated under the bid, the prices will be established competitively in advance, not as an extension of prior year prices. In addition, this approach runs counter to the DCMA approved estimating system requirement to use FPRP rates.

The extension should be priced per the FPRA or FPRP as applicable based on it starting after Option Year 4. The second sentence in paragraphs 10.5.2.3, 10.6.2.3, 10.7.2.3 and 10.8.2.3, beginning with "In developing…", will be removed from Section L.

The Government will update Section L in an amendment to the solicitation.

1/13/2017

30 Sect L 9.3.7.1.1

"The offeror shall submit completed electronic Cost/Price Workbooks (IDIQ Model Contract, Section J, Attachment 14a IDIQ & Transition In TO Cost/Price Workbook, Attachment 14b BPP Sustainment TO & BPP HM/HS TO Cost/Price Workbook, Attachment 14c PARCS Sustainment TO & PARCS HM/HS TO Cost/Price Workbook, Attachment 14d BPP Projects Cost/Price Workbook and Attachment 14e PARCS Projects Cost/Price Workbook) in MS Excel format (this does not negate the requirement in paragraph

3.2.5 to submit a PDF version)."

The duplication of excel data in a different, non‐user friendly format appears to be of limited value.

Simplify the proposal preparation, and eliminate duplication of data.

Concur. The Government has revised the structure and content of the consolidated PDF files. In section L, paragraph 9.3.7.1.1, the phrase in parenthases addressing the consolidated PDF file has been deleted.

The Government will update Section L in an amendment to the solicitation.

1/13/2017

F0002 and F0003 ‐ Bidders' Library n/a

In the Bidders' Library, we were able to find TO 00‐25‐ 108; however, we were unable to find TO 00‐25‐108‐ WA‐1, which is referenced several times in the Sustainment PWS's.

TO 00‐25‐108‐WA‐1 is required to complete proposals.

All references to Technical Orders/Manuals are appended with "‐WA‐1" in accordance with TO 00‐5‐3 and ETIMS, to identify only digital versions of the document are available. All TO/TMs provided in the bidders' library are the correct documents. For example, the work statement references TO 00‐25‐108‐WA‐1, which is identifying the digital version is available and the file provided in the Bidders' Library, TO 00‐25‐108, is the correct file.

None 1/13/2017

F0002 ‐ Bidders' Library n/a

When attempting to open 10‐Applicable Documentation/60‐Order Specific/F0002‐BPP STO/31P6‐2FPS132‐102_30_Jun_2015_Complete.pdf, a corrupt file message is received. Also attempted to open as Acrobat and Internet Explorer and received same message.

Correct unreadable data in the Bidder's Library.

Concur. Corrupted file removed and replaced with new "31P6‐2FPS132‐102_30_Jun_2015_Complete.pdf" file.

Bidders' Library updated with new file on 1/6/2017.

Printed: 1/12/2017 5:01 PM 4 of 10 File: SMORS_2016Dec_RFP_Industry_CRM_v01.xlsx

ID Item to Industry

F0014 ‐ Bidder's Library n/a The MAS source code is not included in the Bidder's Library and is needed to estimate this task within the current SMORS proposal schedule.

n/a Concur. The MAS source code has been delivered via FedEx.

The Government has released, via FedEx, all requested code. FedEx has confirmed delivery on 1/11/16.

1/13/2017

SMORS

Static Code Analysis Tasks and Questions

1.2 Task 6

Task 6 references "three (3) software project Delivery Orders in the solicitation."

Please clarify which delivery orders these are.

n/a Answered previously in CRM provided on FBO posting 12/29/16.

None 1/13/2017

35 Sect L 10.1.2 The solicitation states “For items 5‐19 above, the offeror shall provide a list the names of the files comprising each of these items…”.

Does an offeror need to list each CDRL file being incorporated, or is a statement that all CDRLs have been returned in accordance with the solicitation instructions sufficient?

No. The Government has revised the requirements for what offerors need to include in their proposals with respect to the Contract Documentation volume.

Section L has been revised in multiple locations to simplify and and more clearly identify what offerors need to provide for the Contract Documentation volume.

1/13/2017

36 Sect L 10.1.2 The Solicitation states “the offeror shall provide a single PDF file that contains all elements of the Contract Documentation volume”.

Do all CDRLs need to be included within the single PDF file?

No. The Government revised the requirements to not require offerors to submit back to the Government those elements of the RFP that the offeror is not changing.

Additionally, the Government restructured the requirements for consolidated PDF files to reduce the complexity of these files.

Section L has been revised in multiple locations to eliminate requirements to submit unchanged RFP elements back Government and more clearly specify the required consolicated PDF files and their contents.

1/13/2017

Sect L & all Cost/Price Workbook s

9.3.7.7 & 9.3.7.8

The “Labor hour” worksheet is to contain the hours for the prime by TO/DO, by CLIN, by WBS, and by labor category.

The “[Fxxxx]‐CLIN[yyyy]” worksheets, for the Prime, contain a section within each TO/DO,CLIN sheet for the hours by Labor Category broken out for each contractor fiscal year.

Will the “Labor hour” worksheet to be used for Government analysis only and the hours on the “[Fxxxx]‐CLIN[yyyy]” worksheets are to be inputted directly on each sheet?

Or Is it the Governments intent that the hours on the “[Fxxxx]‐CLIN[yyyy]” worksheets are to be linked to the “Labor hour” worksheet and a summary of the hours created by Labor Category within each TO/DO/CLIN then prorated to each Contractor fiscal year?

The labor hours on each worksheet are to match but the Government is not dictating whether the offeror directly inputs the hours on each sheet, or links the worksheets.

The offeror shall include the working formulas for all calculations, allocations or prorations within the workbook.

Printed: 1/12/2017 5:01 PM 5 of 10 File: SMORS_2016Dec_RFP_Industry_CRM_v01.xlsx

ID Item to Industry

Sect L & all Cost/Price Workbook s

9.3.7

The “Rates” worksheet, for each Subcontractor, shows the fully burdened rate by Labor Category by the Prime’s Fiscal Year.

The “[Fxxxx]‐CLIN[yyyy]” worksheets, for each subcontractor there is one line for total hours, an average loaded rate, and the calculated total loaded dollars.

Is the Contractor to assume that the subcontractor values on the “[Fxxxx]‐CLIN[yyyy]” worksheets are to be totals from the subcontractor submittal to the Prime, and that the subcontractor values on the “Labor Hour” and “Rates” worksheets are to be used only for the Governments analysis?

The subcontractor values in the prime's workbooks are to match the values in the subcontractor's proposal. The Government understands that the subcontractor's rates may be blended in the prime's workbook to account for the potential difference between fiscal and contract years, therefore, provide the working formulas and calculations. The subcontractor values on the "Labor Hour" and "Rates" worksheets will be used in the Government's analysis.

None 1/13/2017

IDIQ SF33

and all orders'

DD1155 ‐

Section B n/a Cost Plus Incentive Fee CLINS share the risk of cost overruns between the Government and the Offeror.

In order to assume all the cost risk, will the Government allow offerors to propose other CLINs types in place of CPIF CLINs?

If no, will the Government allow offerors to propose contractually binding language that caps the allowable costs on CPIF CLINs?

No, the Government will not allow offerors to propose other CLIN types in place of CPIF CLINS, nor will the Government allow offerors to propose contractually binding language that caps the allowable costs on CPIF CLINs.

Had the Government been willing to accept alternate proposals, the Government would have included the appropriate language in FAR 52.215‐1.

None 1/13/2017

40 Sect L 9.2.7.4.x.2

For each "Future Project," Section L lists one of the assumptions as "...Delivery Order executes concurrently with the BPP [or PARCS] Sustainment Task Order (F0002) [or F0003]; the offeror shall not assume any other BPP [or PARCS] Order is executing concurrently."

Is it the Government's intention that the offeror should schedule these future projects in a serial fashion such that there is no schedule or resource overlap as part of the IMS? If not, please clarify.

The Government intends for the offeror to follow the schedule constraints listed in Section L. The Government is not implying that future projects must be completed in a serial fashion.

None 1/13/2017

F0002, F0003 & F0008

FPIF

Incentive Fee Plans n/a F0002, F0003 and F0008 FPIF Incentive Fee Plan Request that the Government reconsider and provide an example of an FPIF Cost Underrun and an FPIF Cost Overrun.

The Government does not believe examples of an underrun and an overrun are necessary. All Fixed Price Incentive Firm Target (FPIF) CLINs in the solicitation provide the necessary parameters to analyze underrun and overrun scenarios. These scenarios can be accomplished by applying the stated parameters to the standard relationship that the Final Profit is equal to the Target Profit plus the contractor’s share of the difference between the Target Cost and the Actual Cost (which will be negative in an overrun), with the Government’s total liability limited to the Ceiling Price. Numerous discussions and sample calculations for FPIF CLINs are available on the internet from both Government and non‐Government sources.

Printed: 1/12/2017 5:01 PM 6 of 10 File: SMORS_2016Dec_RFP_Industry_CRM_v01.xlsx

ID Item to Industry

Cost/Price Workbook ‐ F0003 n/a In F0003 cost workbook there is no line item to price CLIN 5001 – Transition Out Labor. We don't find any other place to price this effort in the workbook.

n/a

The Government agrees that a line for F0003, CLIN 5001 is missing in Attachment 14a, Cost Price Summary‐Grand Total worksheet, and Attachment 14c, Cost Price Summary worksheet. There is a separate worksheet in Attachment 14c for detailed pricing.

In Attachment 14a, on the Cost Price Summary‐ Grand Total worksheet, a line has been added for F0003, CLIN 5001 PARCS Transition Out effort. In Attachment 14c, on the Cost Price Summary worksheet, a line has been added for

F0003, CLIN 5001 PARCS

Transition Out effort.

1/13/2017

F0007, F0010, F0011, F0012 and F0013 work statement s

Appendix C

The PWS APPENDIX C – SOW PARAGRAPH TO CLIN CROSS‐REFERENCE tables in the referenced documents provide mappings from PWS paragraph to CLIN type which are not discrete. For instance, in F0007, many of the "CLIN type" cells have two footnote references ‐ one referencing CLIN 0001 and another referencing CLIN 0002. These CLINS both have the same POP so the offerors are not able to determine how to segregate the hours between the two CLINs. Please provide clarification on how the hours should be spread between the CLINs or make the CLIN unique at the PWS paragraph level

Without clear direction, each offeror will allocate costs differently, making it difficult for the government to evaluate the offers.

This comment appears to be a duplicate of RFP‐020 – see the response to RFP‐020.

None 1/13/2017

44 Sect L Appendix A

As indicated in Section L Appendix A (Cross‐ Reference Matrix Template) there are several instances where a lowest level WBS work package is mapped to both FPIF and CPIF labor CLINS. For example WBS 1.2.1.2.1 (BPP Routine Maintenance Support) is mapped to both n001‐n007 (FPIF) and n002‐n008 (CPIF). This is reinforced in the PWS Appendix C tables, which have CPIF and FPIF allocations at the PWS paragraph level. The estimation of and program tracking procedures for segregating the hours between FPIF and CPIF CLINS within a single WBS is unclear and very cumbersome.

Suggest the Government have lowest level WBS either as FPIF or CPIF, not both.

Clarification needed to ensure all offerors estimate consistently and are able to efficiently track actuals during program execution.

Section L, paragraph 9.3.6.2 states, “For the Government‐ specified elements requiring BOEs that include effort allocated to multiple CLINs, the offeror shall provide in the BOE the breakouts by CLIN and rationale for the allocation.” Paragraph 9.3.6.5 states, “The offeror shall explain the tasks being performed under the CWBS elements (include applicable PWS/SOW references)…” and “…the offeror shall separately address sub‐elements of the subject PWBS element.” Finally, paragraph 9.3.7.3 states, “The offeror shall develop a CWBS by extending the PWBS to the levels necessary to support the management of work and required contract performance and cost reporting during execution.” The Government’s initial expectation is that the offeror, in creating its Contractor WBS, will create lower‐level elements as needed to support management of work, control performance and appropriately report costs. As such, creating lower level elements to separate fixed‐price work and cost‐reimbursable work would be an appropriate methodology for creating the necessary separation of the work.

Printed: 1/12/2017 5:01 PM 7 of 10 File: SMORS_2016Dec_RFP_Industry_CRM_v01.xlsx

ID Item to Industry

F0006 work statement

3.2.3

Requirements states, "The contractor shall recommend changes to the Government‐controlled baseline system documentation, including the SRD, Scenarios, Regression Test Analysis Plans and Regression Test Procedures."

Please clarify if the Government intends for this requirement to address only the "SRD, Scenarios, Regression Test Analysis Plans and Regression Test Procedures" or all of the Government‐controlled baseline system documentation.

Clarification requested to ensure all offerors estimate consistently and are able to efficiently track actuals during program execution.

As stated in the requirement, the Government intends for the requirement to address the Government‐controlled system baseline documentation. Also reference other requirements in the work statement, such as paragraph

3.2.1 "The contractor shall perform an analysis of the AN/FPS‐132 radar system performance in order to identify gaps between the actual system performance and the existing Government‐controlled baseline system documentation," in which the contractor is required to conduct activities in regards to the Government‐ controlled system baseline documentation.

None 1/13/2017

F0006 work statement

3.2.3

Requirements states, "The contractor shall recommend changes to the Government‐controlled baseline system documentation, including the SRD, Scenarios, Regression Test Analysis Plans and Regression Test Procedures."

Please clarify if the Government intends for this requirement to address only the "SRD, Scenarios, Regression Test Analysis Plans and Regression Test Procedures" or all of the Government‐controlled baseline system documentation.

Clarification requested to ensure all offerors estimate consistently and are able to efficiently track actuals during program execution.

As stated in the requirement, the Government intends for the requirement to address the Government‐controlled system baseline documentation. Also reference other requirements in the work statement, such as paragraph

3.2.1 "The contractor shall perform an analysis of the AN/FPS‐132 radar system performance in order to identify gaps between the actual system performance and the existing Government‐controlled baseline system documentation," in which the contractor is required to conduct activities in regards to the Government‐ controlled system baseline documentation.

Printed: 1/12/2017 5:01 PM 8 of 10 File: SMORS_2016Dec_RFP_Industry_CRM_v01.xlsx

ID Item to Industry

47 Sect L Appendix A

With regard to the Cross Reference Matrix, there appears to be a discrepancy that may create confusion with offerors. It appears that the CRM references for the SETR phases are incorrectly mapped for DOs F0008, F0009, F0010, F0011, F0012, F0013, and F0014. The Section L Appendix A Cross‐ Reference Matrix denotes that the PWS statements associated with the SETR phases (PWS Section 3.3.2) map exclusively to the WBS element related to Hardware/Software Procurement (1.3.17.n.2, where n is different per DO). The mapping on DOs F0006 and F0007 correctly maps the SETR phases (PWS section 3.3.2) to the Modification and Integration WBS (1.3.17.n.1, where n is different per DO). Per Section L 5.3, it would appear that offerors are to assume the WBS is correct. There are two concerns:

1) it is unclear from the RFP as to whether or not an offeror is allowed to change the Government entries in Cross Reference Matrix; and

2) there is the potential that some offerors may follow the CRM in their pricing versus follwing the WBS, which will create a mismatch between the contents of the WBS elements between offerors.

n/a

The separate references to Statement of Work paragraphs

3.3.1 and 3.3.2 in the Rqmt Para No column in the F0008, F0009, F0010, F0011, F0012, F0013 and F0014 portions of the Section L Cross‐Reference Matrix created unintended mappings for the System Engineering Technical Review (SETR) phases in these orders. These mappings have been revised to tie the broader “Modification and Integration” sections of the SOWs rather than the “Analysis & Design” and “System Engineering Technical Review (SETR)” sections. As for offerors being allowed to change the Government’s entries in the CRM, the Government’s intent was for the initial CRM to be viewed as a template that offerors can change as needed to provide the appropriate mapping of their proposals.

The entries for SOW paragraphs 3.3.1 and

3.3.2 ‐ including the labels ‐ have been revised to refer to SOW paragraph 3.3.

1/13/2017

48 Sect L 6.6.3.3

“The offeror shall decompose work sufficiently to ensure all tasks are planned and scheduled for the first 6 months of project execution.”

Can the Government please clarify the intent of this requirement and what the phrase "project execution" means in this context? More specifically, would this requirement be satisfied by the delivery of a schedule that includes only the six months immediately following contract award, or does this requirement mean that a schedule must be delivered that shows the first six months of every Contract Order (Task and Delivery) included in the solicitation?

n/a

The Government's intent is that the offeror's IMS will include '…all appropriate activities, events and accomplishments from all Orders in the solicitation."

Specific to Sec L 6.6.3.3, which instructs offerors to "…decompose work sufficiently to ensure all tasks are planned and scheduled for the first 6 months of project execution", the Government's intent for this instruction is for the offeror to decompose all of the planned activities, events and accomplishments taking place in the first 6 months of each SMORS Order.

The Government's intent is for the offeror to conduct detailed planning for each order for a minimum of the first 6 months. Beyond the first 6 months in each order, somewhat less detail may be acceptable; however, the offeror must include sufficient detail for the Government to evaluate whether or not the proposed approach satisfies the requirements, the amount of risk associated with the approach and whether or not the approach is realistic.

Section L, 6.6.3.3 has been updated to clarify the Government's intent.

Printed: 1/12/2017 5:01 PM 9 of 10 File: SMORS_2016Dec_RFP_Industry_CRM_v01.xlsx

ID Item to Industry

Sect L Appendix A, IFPs and Cost/Price Workbook s n/a

References:

1) IFP (e.g.

14_06_SMORS_F0014_ATCH02_BPP_SVR_IFP_v07rev 001_RFP.pdf),

2) Cost Workbook (00_16_SMORS_IDIQ_ATCH14a_IDIQ_Trans_ In_TO_CP_Wkbk_v02rev000 _RFP .xlsx) and

3) Paragraph 9.2.7.x of Section L (00_11_SMORS_IDIQ_ATCH09_Sec_L_v07rev000_RF P.pdf)

The Government instructions for bidding of NSP Data CLINs, Incentive‐related CLINs, Travel CLINs, and ODC CLINs are inconsistent across the proposal documentation for the task orders and delivery orders. IFP's, Cost Workbook, and Paragraph 9.2.7 of Section L conflict with ordering instructions. These documents inconsistently reference NSP Data, IFP, Travel, and ODC.

n/a

First, it is imperative that Industry ensure use of the most current solicitation documentation. The referenced IFP and Section L are not the current versions released in Amendment 0001 and Amendment 0002.

Second, the Governemnt reviewed the CLIN references within the solicitation documentation and has identified errors in Section L that may have resulted in confusion between other solicitation documents.

The Government reviewed the CLIN references in Section L, the Incentive Fee Plans and the Cost/Price workbooks for incorrect references to the CLINs defined in the SF33 and the 1155s for each order. The Government corrected all of the incorrect references found.

Printed: 1/12/2017 5:01 PM 10 of 10 File: SMORS_2016Dec_RFP_Industry_CRM_v01.xlsx