DRFP_CRM_FINAL_for_Industry.pdf

STANDARDIZED COMMENT RESOLUTION MATRIX (CRM) INSTRUCTIONS

The below Word table template is to be used to submit comments regarding Contractor deliverables. Except as noted below, an entry is required in each of the columns. To facilitate consolidating matrixes from various sources, do not adjust the column widths.

Top of Page – Company Name Add Company Name to every CRM sheet.

Column 1 – ITEM Numeric order of comments. Accomplish when all comments from all sources are entered and sorted. To number the matrix rows, highlight this column only and then select the numbering ICON on the formatting tool bar. Once numbers assigned forwarded to the Government for response(s). The comments shall retain their originally assigned number through to closure.

Column 2 - SOURCE Include the last name comment originator.

Column 3 – TYPE Identify the significance of the comment.

• C – Critical (Contentious issue that will equate to unfulfilled or unmet contractual requirement)

• S – Substantive (Factually incorrect material)

• A – Administrative (Comments which relate to grammar, punctuation, style, etc.)

Column 4 – PAGE Page or sheet number that pertains to the comment expressed. If it is a general comment, pertaining to the overall deliverable, then insert “GEN”.

Column 5 – PARA Paragraph, table, figure, chart, etc. number that pertains to the comment expressed, if applicable. In the case of drawings use the designated coordinates on the sheet such as A-5 or D-7. The alpha character represents the horizontal axis while the numeric represents the vertical and they can be found around the border of the drawing sheet.

Column 6 – COMMENT To facilitate adjudication of comments, copy and insert complete sentences into the matrix.

This makes it unnecessary to refer back to the publication to understand the rationale for the comment. If this doesn’t apply and the comment refers to a table, figure etc., then include further location description such as row 6, column 8. Do not use Tools, Track Changes mode to edit the comments in the matrix. Do not combine separate comments into one long comment in the matrix, (i.e. 5 comments rolled up into one).

Column 7 - RATIONALE Provide concise, objective explanation of the rationale for the comment.

Column 8 – GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The CRM shall be forwarded to the Government via e-mail (see below) and in word format to allow for responses on this form.

Column 9 – GOVERNMENT ACTION Upon receipt of the Contractor CRM, the Government will review comments and determine if the comments are acceptable or not. A consolidated CRM (a CRM with all contractor comments and Government resolutions/action items included) will be posted to fedbizopps for Contractor review.

• A - Accept

• R – Reject (Rationale required for rejection.)

• M - Accept with modification (Rationale required for modification.)

E-mail CRM to:

• Andrew Sibley, Contracting Officer - andrew.sibley@us.af.mil

• Matthew Maceachern, Contracting Specialist -matthew.maceachern@us.af.mil

• Ashley Martin, Contracting Specialist - ashley.martin.17@us.af.mil

COMMENT RESOLUTION MATRIX

FPS4 RFP DOCUMENT REVIEW

ITEM SOURCE

T Y P E

PAGE PARA COMMENT RATIONALE RESOLUTION ACTION

ITEMS

FPS4 SOW (Draft)

1.

C Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.4

The term ‘Nuclear’ is mentioned in INTRO section, and only in one part of the

REQUIREMENTS

section – in Program Security. The activities of (4.2.1) Site Survey, (4.2.2) Quality, (4.2.4) Sustainment should be general enough to allow industry to provide innovation, or call out how these procedures should be modified for nuclear.

Security for nuclear weapons requires high reliability and availability and potentially grave consequences should something go wrong.

Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and 4.2.4 describe in a general sense the work expected of FPS4 contractors in the areas of Site

Survey, Quality and Sustainment. PL-1N DOs will contain more detailed nuclear-specific requirements in those areas for nuclear projects.

Additional PL-1N requirements, though not required for the FPS4 sample problem, are found in AFI 31-108 which will be provided with the Bidder’s

Library of any future PL-1N DOs.

See edits to Section 4.2.2. and

4.2.4.

2.

C Objective

– PME

(2.2.1)

Integrate desired tasks into one list. Draft states contractor shall- “design, acquire, install, integrate, test, deliver, sustain and/or upgrade or reconfigure “ and then cites related tasks as “design, upgrade, construction, installation and integration of necessary supporting infrastructure, and site cleanup and restoration”.

Clearer for Industry. The last sentence is meant to call out secondary tasks (i.e., supporting infrastructure, site cleanup, restoration) associated with the prime mission equipment and systems. As one list, no distinction would be made between prime mission equipment and systems and these secondary tasks.

Refer to section

2.2.1 for updated verbiage

3.

C Section 2.2.2

Delete the requirement for special test activities when suggesting to use COTS/GOTS that is NOT from the AEL.

Allow industry to propose in their sample response how to best do items

2.2.2.2 – 2.2.2.6.

Objective – Equipment Purchase (2.2.2) Specific test activities for COTS/GOTS that are NOT from the AEL discourages industry from taking advantage of changing technology, and impedes agility.

Acknowledged, however, equipment selected by contractors in AEL categories that is not already on the AEL is required to be tested.

Requirements for qualification testing will be established at the delivery order level.

For clarity, the FPS4 SOW does not contain site-specific requirements required to answer the sample problem. Rather, it is meant to provide offerors with overarching requirements for not just the sample problem, but with DOs that could come up during the life of FPS4.

None.

4.

C Section 2.2.3

Objective –Systems Engineering (2.2.3) – the items 2.2.3.1 and

2.2.3.2 could be combined and be less confusing to industry (i.e. separate design sections – one for systems, one for subsystems)

Less confusion about role of industry in Design.

Changed title of section 2.3.2.2 to “System Design”

5.

C Section 2.2.5.2, Objective

Tech Insertion (2.2.5.2) “shall statements” seems like the words should appear under Requirements in 4.2.

The objective ought to be what was stated on page 4.

Less confusion about tech Insertion and why we do it and when.

Although a “shall statement” was used, contents of 2.2.5.2 fits better under Purpose Section.

Changed select “shall” statements to “may” statements in

Section 2.2 and revised Objective statement in 2.2

6.

C Section 2.2.5.3, Objective

Equipment Qualification (2.2.5.3) seems like the words should appear under requirements.

Less confusion about equipment qualification and why we do it and when.

Equipment Qualification (2.2.5.3) fits under parent paragraph (Developmental

Projects, Demonstrations, and Studies).

Changed select “shall” statements to “may” statements in

Section 2.2 and revised Objective statement in 2.2

7.

C Sections 4.2.1.4

(4.2.1.4) Test and Turnover – too many tests. Suggest letting industry recommend a proven test strategy to meet acceptance objectives

Allows offerors to identify lessons learned and to differentiate themselves. Too many tests drive up costs and make industry less agile.

Section includes a summary level description of verification activities to expect on FPS4, which include but may not be limited to CVT and GAT.

None

8.

C Section 4.2.3

Change DIACAP to

RMF (4.2.3)

RMF is the prevailing standard in the DoD today.

Concur SOW Section

4.2.3 revised to reflect current

DoD Cybersecurity Assessment & Authorization procedures

9.

S Section 4.2.5.3

IPT (4.2.5.3) –In the Govt IPT forum discussion, replace the language “where programmatic and technical issues are resolved” with “where the govt provides clarification on requirements or interpretation of requirements and challenges assumptions to allow for industry to resolve issues”

The Govt IPT forum should not be a forum where programmatic and technical issues are resolved, it should be a forum where the govt provides clarification on requirements or interpretation of requirements and challenges assumptions to allow for industry to resolve issues

Changed “resolve” to

“discuss”

10.

S 12 / 19 3.2.2 / 4.2.3 Will the government clarify if RMF will be used and not

DIACAP?

SOW Section 3.2.2 identifies RMF. Section 4.2.3 identifies DIACAP support. DoD has transitioned from DIACAP to

RMF.

Concur. SOW Section

4.2.3 revised to reflect current

DoD Cybersecurity Assessment & Authorization procedures

11. SOW

A 8 2.2.6.4.1 May we have clarification on what

Further definition would assist Delivery Order bidders to avoid

Concur. See SOW Section

2.2.6.4.1 for scope of work might be considered “specific to cybersecurity” and requiring the three employee certifications?

over or underpricing the staffing in their proposals and also helps contractors to prepare for the correct number of appropriately certified staff to be on board in advance of a delivery order solicitation revised language regarding

Cybersecurity Personnel

Qualifications

12.

SOW

S General General Will the Delivery Order solicitation cycle be similar to FPS3 in that draft DO solicitation documents are released with an invitation to a site survey/visit prior to final RFP release?

Assists contractors in planning resources needed to participate on this contract

Pre-award site surveys will be a part of the FPS4 DO RFP process as deemed appropriate

None

13.

S Gen

Can the government provide a notional schedule of projects anticipated post award?

Helps industry solidify business case and prepare adequate post award staffing.

Provided via FedBizOps None

14.

S Gen Will a certain percentage of post award Delivery Orders be set-aside for Small Businesses

Helps industry build the appropriate team to respond to IDIQ as well as pursue future Task Orders.

Small Business Set Asides will be made at the discretion of the

Contracting Officer

None

15.

S Gen What is the government’s plan for evaluating future Delivery Orders – LPTA vs Best Value

Helps industry determine which Task Orders provide an appropriate ROI and in turn assist in determining resource allocation for pursuit.

The Government will utilize all available methods of Fair Opportunity Evaluations

16.

S Gen What is the importance of cybersecurity to FPS 4?

Assist industry in correctly solutioning a technical response that meets/exceeds AF requirements.

Cybersecurity is very important to the performance of our systems…please refer to subfactor 2 in Section M for how cybersecurity will be evaluated

None

17.

S 21 Attach L-1 Sample task for FPS 4 very similar to FPS 3 sample task. Can the government provide additional insight regarding what they are looking for in an offeror response to the

Please refer to Section M regarding sample problem evaluation criteria.

FPS4 sample task that is different from what was looked at for

FPS3?

18.

Are we restricted to the AEL regarding sample problem equipment selection?

Yes, unless a category of equipment is not included on the

AEL.

19.

A 5 2.2.2.1 Must all AEL testing be accomplished at Eglin Site C-3, or can AEL test teams perform that testing at a site where a system is already deployed in the actual operational environment for which it is designed?

AEL testing at Eglin Site C-3 can be done year-round but is only one type of environment, but there are many other operational environments (e.g., extreme dryness, frozen ground).

In some cases, testing at an already deployed site can be more cost effective than deploying for a separate test conducted at C-3.

Most equipment testing occurs at either Site C-3 and the Cold Weather Test Site at Grand

Forks AFB. However, individual components, as identified by the Government, may be permitted to be tested in conjunction with a GAT. The process is constantly evolving and any process changes will be communicated to FPS4 contractors throughout the performance period of FPS4.

None

20.

A 5 2.2.2.1 Will the government provide a listing/description of C-sUAS GFE as part of the bidder’s library?

Will the bidder’s library be available prior to final RFP release?

Access to this information enables a full understanding of the requirements.

Not required for FPS4 sample problem…will be provided as necessary under specific DOs

Documents required for preparing proposals will be provided with the final RFP

FPS4 RFP SECTION L (Draft)

21.

A 11 2.2.2 Will the government clarify if 10 point font is acceptable for tables, charts, graphs, figures and headers/footers?

The paragraph identifies 12 point font for text. For readability, we recommend a smaller font size for tables, charges, graphs, and figures.

No smaller than 12 point font will be required for all proposal documents

None

22.

S 35 Table 3-1 Clear Align is the

OEM of the LRTI system. Clear Align

LRTI system (VZ-250) has EOL components and upgraded versions are available as well as

For the sample problem, use the equipment on the AEL, without regard to whether equipment is purchased the camera business from General

Dynamics Global Imaging Technologies in 2017. The LRTI system (VZ-250) has been deployed on previous FPS contracts for many years. It has obsolete components.

Is there an opportunity to offer an upgraded platform or should the original LRTI product as described still be the camera offered?

other camera systems that would be technically superior.

obsolete or end of life. For FPS4 delivery orders, the Government will provide additional guidance.

23.

Can obsolete equipment on the AEL be proposed as part of the sample problem solution?

Yes, for the sample problem, use the AEL as provided.

None

24.

Section L, Att L-1

A 24 3.7 Section L instructions require bidders to map responses to Section M evaluation criteria.

Should 3.7 CCDE be mapped to Subfactor 1 or Subfactor 4?

Clarification ensures compliance with RFP instructions

CCDE maps to multiple subfactors.

None

25.

S 26 3.10 (c) Recommend providing more granular requirements for encryption (specify in transit, at rest or both for the purposes of the sample task

Ensures that hardware/software is specified correctly for sample task

Concur, will address with final

RFP

None

26.

S 26 3.10(d) Clarify that remote device management is intended to be in-band and not physically separate out-of-band management

Ensures accurate response to sample task

Concur, will address with final

RFP

None

27.

A 28 3.14 Section L instructions require bidders to map responses to Section

Clarification ensures compliance with RFP instructions

Lighting maps to multiple subfactors.

M evaluation criteria.

Does Lighting map to

Subfactor 4, other security items or

Subfactor 1(since it supports the surveillance system)?

28.

Section L 1

4.4.2 Reference

begins:

"Provide the verification plan that depicts the offeror's approach…"

Assuming that each offeror will be submitting its own plan, does the

Government have a recommended template or format for this plan? May offerors' plans not count against page limits?

Section L There is no specified template for Verification Plans.

Verification plans will be included in page count limits.

None

29.

Section L 1

Attachme nt 3 to

Solicitatio n - Small Business

Subcontra cting Plan

Small Business

Subcontractin g Plan vs.

Small Business

Participation Plan

Does the Government intend to require large businesses to submit both a Subcontracting and Participation Plan?

If both, the Small Business Participation element should probably be extracted from this subcontracting section and given its own requirements paragraphs.

Section L Small Business Participation contents were revised. See updated draft RFP.

This section has been revised extensively. See technical subfactor 4 for guidance.

30.

Section L, Attachment 3

6.1.7 Text reads

"The current Department of Defense small business subcontractin g goals apply to the FPS4 acquisition:"

Does Table 6.1 apply to the overall IDIQ

Small Business awards or does it apply to all Unrestricted Full & Open Task Orders?

Section L, Attachment 3 Small Business Participation contents were revised. See updated draft RFP.

This section has been revised extensively. See technical subfactor 4 for guidance.

31.

C 18 6.1.7 Attach 3 Provide clarification on how small business participation (for a large business bidder) will be evaluated.

Allows bidders to right size the team and ensure all SB socioeconomic requirements on future TOs are met.

Small Business Participation contents were revised. See updated draft RFP.

This section has been revised extensively. See technical subfactor 4 for guidance.

32.

C 18 6.1.7 Attach 3 Will bidders need to meet small business goals in team organization and

BOEs for the ID/IQ evaluation or is this only evaluated once DOs are awarded?

Helps industry build the appropriate team to respond to IDIQ as well as pursue future Task Orders.

Offerors will need to provide their plan to satisfy these requirements as part of the Small Business Participation section of technical subfactor 4.

None

33.

A 18 3rd Para – Attachment 3

SB Subcontracting Plan goal is identified as 33% of total contract value. Would the government consider changing that to 33% of subcontracted dollars?

Much of the subcontracted/vendor efforts are driven by the AEL.

This will be calculated at 33% of subcontracted dollars

See Section 5.2.4 for corrected verbiage

34.

A 17 6.0 There is a typo in the Volume number identified. The Volume number should be ‘IV’ per the table on page10.

Correction Noted. Corrected discrepancy

35.

C 11 Section 2.2.6 Section 2.2.2 states that “The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 2016, MS Excel 2016, MS-Project 2016, as applicable.”

Would the Government allow offerors to submit portions of their proposal in a searchable .pdf file to facilitate consistent pagination between the hard copy and electronic copy?

Searchable PDF will be permitted.

Updated verbiage in Section 2.2.6 for clarity

36.

C 21 Attachment L-1, Section 2.0, Table 2-1

Attachment L-1, Section 2.0, Table 2-1 does not specify the available type and location of power for Pl-1 Restricted Area.

Will provide details with final

RFP

Would the Government please provide details on the type and location of available power at Pl-1 Restricted Area?

37.

C 28 Attachment L-1, Section 3.12.1

Attachment L-1, Section 3.12.1 provides the requirements for the BDOC Badging Station. Would the Government please advise what building the badging BDOC badging station will be located in?

Will provide details with final

RFP