CAMMO_Feedback_Matrix_RFI__3_Govt_Response_ver_1_2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 100 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Consolidated Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN) Modifications, Maintenance & Operations (CAMMO) Contract Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8823-13-R-0009
About this file
CAMMO Feedback Matrix RFI 3 Governmemt Response - Excel format
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Consolidated Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN) Modifications, Maintenance & Operations (CAMMO) Contract has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Feedback_Matrix_Responses
| CAMMO Feedback Matrix RFI #3 Responses | |||||
| Date: 22 April 2014 | |||||
| Response # | Document | Page #, Para#, Line# | Was (Original Language) | Comment/Suggested Change | Government Response to Matrix |
| 1 | Bidder's Library | N/A | NA | By what means can offerors inform the government as to required documents for the Bidder’s Library in order to accurately bid the anticipated work of the draft PWS? (Example: Library documentation would include the current STD levels/trends and supporting data to meet the STDs as presented in the draft PWS and Performance Incentive Plan.) | Offeror's should use of the Feedback Matrix in RFI#3 for comments or suggestions. |
| 2 | Bidder's Library | N/A | N/A | Recommend the following be included in the Bidder’s Library to ensure all competitors are offered a current and comprehensive view of the legacy programs in order to ensure thorough proposal responses: Specifications, Reports, Open Problem Reports, Open Change Requests , Current projects, Design Data, All Engineering Drawings and network configurations, Listing of Technical Documents, Past schedules for program depot support, EDLM Any consolidated schedule that shows project status and future project plans, Current processes and procedures, All Tech Orders and operator procedures, Maintenance procedures, Local Policies, procedures, OIs, Future projects that a new contractor is expected to support , Contract Mods , GFE listings (HW & SW and Licenses) , Equipment/systems by location, Collective Bargaining Agreements, Staffing reports generated by contractors, As-is performance metrics related to workload: i.e., number and nature of problems and maintenance actions per time period, System performance RMA data, Detail documentation supporting requirement for Contractor Controlled Computer Systems Security (PWS 3.6.3.7 thru 3.6.3.12) , Cyber Security: Configuration information, POAMs, status of certifications and accreditations and other relevant IA data, Current Data Accession List | The Government will evaluate and determine if there is an update required for the Bidder's Library. - See bidders Library and submit additional requests for data as needed for a response to the RFP. |
| 3 | CLINs | Page 1, Line 12 | Target Profit (FPIF CLINs): 10% | Recommend this be changed to 12% | The Government will take under advisement. The intention to establish pricing elements in the RFP. |
| 4 | CLINs | Page 1, Line 13 | Ceiling Price (FPIF CLINs): 115% | Recommend this be changed to 120% | The Government will take under advisement. The intention to establish pricing elements in the RFP |
| 5 | CLINs | Page 1, Line 19 | Target Fixed Fee (CPFF CLINs): 8% | Acceptable | The Government appreciates the feedback. |
| 6 | CLINs | Page 1, Lines 14-16 | Share Ratio (FPIF CLINs): |
70% Government/30% Contractor (Underrun)
| 30% Government/70% Contractor (Overrun) | Recommend the share ratio be changed to 50/50 to better incentivize the contractor. | The Government will evaluate and finalize with RFP release. | ||||
| 7 | CLINs | All | Additional contract incentives to motivate additional contract efficiencies could include increasing the Contractor share of any Underrun from 70% / 30% (Government / Contractor) to 50% / 50% ratio. | |||
| The Government intention to establish pricing elements in the RFP | ||||||
| 8 | CLINs | Page 1, Line 12 | Target Profit (FPIF CLINs): 10% | Agree with this approach as it will align all offerors and allow focus on innovative and efficient technical approach at lower cost. | The Government appreciates the feedback. | |
| 9 | CLINs | Page 1, Line 13 | Ceiling Price (FPIF CLINs): 115% | A ceiling price of 120% is recommended. | The Government will take under advisement. The intention to establish pricing elements in the RFP | |
| 10 | CLINs | Page 1, Line 19 | Target Fixed Fee (CPFF CLINs): 8% | Agree with this approach as it will align all offerors and allow focus on innovative and efficient technical approach at lower cost. | The Government appreciates the feedback. | |
| 11 | CLINs | Page 1, Lines 14-16 | Share Ratio (FPIF CLINs): |
70% Government/30% Contractor (Underrun)
| 30% Government/70% Contractor (Overrun) | Recommend that the share ratios be equal for overrun & underrun at 50/50. The probability of an underrun and overrun are equal; thus the risks and rewards should be shared equally. | The Government will evaluate and finalize with RFP release. | ||||
| 12 | CLINs | Page 1, Lines 6 and 7 | Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) – Transition Phase-In | Agree with this approach. Any successful offeror should have a complete understanding of the requirements and be able to estimate the cost/price for Phase In. This is consistent with most Solicitations and the Government should not bear the cost risk associated with the contractors phase in. | The Government appreciates the feedback. | |
| 13 | CLINs | Page 1 | Pricing elements for FPIF CLIN will be Target Profit 10%; Ceiling Price 115%, Share Ratio Underrun 70%/30% and Overrun 30%/70%. On line 19 it states Pricing elements for CPFF CLINS will be: Target Fixed Fee - 8%. | Is it the Government's intent to direct the profit, ceiling, share ratios, and fixed fee for the CLIN elements? | The Government will take under advisement. The intention to establish pricing elements in the RFP | |
| 14 | CLINs | CLINS, general | Recommend that the FFP CLINs be consolidated into the FPIF CLins. The CLIN structure is fairly complex. Consolidation would reduce administrative overhead for both the government and the contractor, and provide the government better leverage over the performance with QPI scoring while reducing contractor's risk. | The Government will take under advisement. The intention to establish pricing elements in the RFP | ||
| 15 | CLINs | Page 1, Line 12 | Target Profit (FPIF CLINs): 10% | Fee is appropriate for the work as defined. | The Government appreciates the feedback. | |
| 16 | CLINs | Page 1, Line 13 | Ceiling Price (FPIF CLINs): 115% | Fee is appropriate for the work as defined. | The Government appreciates the feedback. | |
| 17 | CLINs | Page 1, Line 19 | Target Fixed Fee (CPFF CLINs): 8% | The 8% target fee for the CPFF is appropriate for those clearly defined tasks of the nature normally found on O&M work, with clear definition and clear completion criteria. | The Government appreciates the feedback. | |
| 18 | CLINs | Page 1, Lines 14-16 | Share Ratio (FPIF CLINs): |
70% Government/30% Contractor (Underrun)
| 30% Government/70% Contractor (Overrun) | Recommend a 50/50 share ratio and apply the underrun against our QPI. | The Government will evaluate and finalize with RFP release. | ||||
| 19 | CLINs | Page 1, Line 12 | Target Profit (FPIF CLINs): 10% | There are numerous factors considered in determining the appropriate profit or fee to bid in a competitive acquisition. These include investment rates of return, assets employed, skill level of personnel required, technical, management and cost risks, etc. By specifying a profit percentage in the contract the government risks restricting contractor participation by limiting an important variable that industry uses in establishing a competitive position. | The Government will take under advisement. The intention to establish pricing elements in the RFP | |
| 20 | CLINs | Page 1, Line 13 | Ceiling Price (FPIF CLINs): 115% | No change to ceiling required. | ||
| This appears to be adequate for this type of contract structure and work. | The Government appreciates the feedback. | |||||
| 21 | CLINs | Page 1, Line 19 | Target Fixed Fee (CPFF CLINs): 8% | Typically in a competitive acquisition it is the act of competition itself which will determine a fair profit or fee percentage. There are numerous factors considered in determining the appropriate profit or fee to bid in a competitive acquisition. These include investment rates of return, assets employed, skill level of personnel required, technical, management and cost risks, etc. By specifying a profit percentage in the contract the government risks restricting contractor participation by limiting an important variable that industry uses in establishing a competitive position. | The Government will take under advisement. The intention to establish pricing elements in the RFP | |
| 22 | CLINs | Page 1, Lines 14-16 | Share Ratio (FPIF CLINs): |
70% Government/30% Contractor (Underrun)
| 30% Government/70% Contractor (Overrun) | In an effort to incentivize contract performance at Target Cost or below as well as ongoing cost savings, we recommend an alternative approach where the initial Share Ratio of 70/30 is applied to costs under target as well as costs over target, then over the life of the contract (i.e., yrs 2 and 4) the share ratio would migrate to 60/40 in year 2 and 50/50 in year 4. This approach would incentivize industry as well as the government to drive cost and performance efficiencies throughout the program period of performance | The Government will evaluate and finalize with RFP release. | ||||
| 23 | Incentive Plan | Page 11, Appendix A, PIM-1, Lines 214-215 | This metric shall be calculated monthly by the CAMMO contractor in accordance with 50SWI 10-220. | This metric is to be calculated by the CAMMO contractor, per this sentence. However, Lines 143-147 states that the Government Surveillance Team is responsible for scoring the contractor's performance. Please clarify: Will the Government Surveillance Team provide scores for the individual PIMs to the contractor who then calculates the metrics based on those scores? Need clarification. | The Government will evaluate and finalize with RFP release. | |
| 24 | Incentive Plan | Page 11, Appendix A, PIM-1, Lines 214-215 | This metric shall be calculated monthly by the CAMMO contractor in accordance with 50SWI 10-220. | 50SWI 10-220 (Page 5, Figure 1) shows a formula using a "Total Possible Points." How is this Total Possible Points value derived for each RTS, and when is that value made available to the contractor? Does that number vary from month-to-month? Need clarification. | 50SWI 10-220 Section 7 Support Scoring, provides details relating to the total possible points. | |
| 25 | Incentive Plan | Page 11, Appendix A, PIM-1, Lines 221-223 | Additionally, whereas 50SWI 10-220 defines the acceptable level of performance as being for each individual site, this PIM shall measure the metric across the entire network (all AFSCN operational sides). | How are the individual metrics for each site consolidated into a single metric that applies to the network as a whole? Please provide an example. Need clarification. | The Government will review and potentially update the Incentive Plan | |
| 26 | Incentive Plan | Page 12, PIM-5, Line 247 | This is measured as the average number of total actual hours (not working hours) between the notification to the contractor of an EDLM condition (by an authorized government representative) and the contractor’s maintenance team being en route to the respective site over the course of the contract quarter. | There appears to be a difference between the PIM description in the PWS and what is in the PIP. The PWS indicates “…the Contractor must identify to the government the specific personnel with the required skill levels, materials, tools, and equipment and specific travel plans within 24 hours after notification by the PCO. The PIP lists the PIM requirement as “This is measured as the average number of actual hours (not working hours) between the notification to the contractor of an EDLM condition (by an authorized government representative) and the maintenance team being en route to the respective site over the course of the contract quarter.” | The Government will evaluate and finalize with RFP release. |
27 Incentive Plan Page 12, PIM-6, Line ??? This is measured as the average number of total actual hours (not working hours) between the notification to the contractor of a UDLM condition (by an authorized government representative) and the contractor’s maintenance team being en route to the respective site over the course of the contract quarter Please clarify the start time for UDLM response Recommend that start time begins upon agreement with the government as to the scheduling of the UDLM. Also recommend that the contractor not be held to this metric for conditions outside its direct control.
The Government will evaluate and finalize with RFP release.
| 28 | Incentive Plan | Page 12, PIM-6, Line 257 | This is measured as the average number of total actual hours (not working hours) between the notification to the contractor of a UDLM condition (by an authorized government representative) and the contractor’s maintenance team being en route to the respective site over the course of the contract quarter | There appears to be difference between the PIM description in the PWS and what is in the PIP. The PWS indicates “…the Contractor must identify to the government the specific personnel with the required skill levels, materials, tools, and equipment and specific travel plans within 72 hours after notification by the PCO. The PIP lists the PIM requirement (line 257) as “This is measured as the average number of actual hours (not working hours) between the notification to the contractor of an EDLM condition (by an authorized government representative) and the maintenance team being en route to the respective site over the course of the contract quarter.” |
| The Government will evaluate and finalize with RFP release. |
29 Incentive Plan Page 13, PIM-10, first Line This metric evaluates the contractor’s ability to deliver software releases (including Sub-System Software Version Releases, Software Maintenance Actions [SWMAs], and Inter-Range Operation Number [IRON] Databases) with no Category One (CAT-I) Deficiency Reports (DRs) over the course of the contract quarter. The metric for measurement is called out as 'contract quarter', whereas the PWS performance standard for 3.7.3.3, 3.7.3.4, and 3.7.3.4 reference "within 30 days following operational acceptance" or per "contract year". Clearly define the metric period for consistency in each document, PWS or Incentive Plan. The Government will evaluate and finalize with RFP release.
30 Incentive Plan Page 13, PIM-8 PIM-8 “ Off-Site Vendor Repairs The Performance Incentive Plan PIM-8 is titled Off-Site Vendor Repairs, the PWS refers to “ Sub-vendor repairs” Pg 41 Lines 37 and 38” and Pg 42 Lines 15-16. Are the terms synonymous? Use the term “ Off-Site Vendor Repairs" in the Performance Incentive Plan. The Government will evaluate and finalize with RFP release.
31 Incentive Plan Page 14, Table A, Line 291 Table A: Monthly Performance Incentive Metrics Suggest renaming table as "Table A: Monthly and Quarterly Performance Incentive Metrics" The Government will review and update the Incentive Plan.
| 32 | Incentive Plan | Page 7, Para 1, Line 92 | ...facilitate calculation of quarterly payment to the CAMMO contractor… | Suggested Change: "...facilitate calculation of adjustment to the Target Profit to the CAMMO contractor. The calculation will be assessed on a monthly or quarterly basis as indicated in Table A: Monthly Performance Incentive Metrics. In the interim, the Contractor may invoice profit monthly at the rate of 7% (in alignment with Progress Payments) subject to the discretion of the Contracting Officer based on prior or current performance levels." | The Government intention is to keep proposed quarterly incentive payments | |
| 33 | Incentive Plan | Page 12, Lines 237-241 | PIM-4: Scheduled versus Actual Downtime (PWS 3.4.2.1): This metric evaluates the contractor’s ability to accurately predict downtime requirements for scheduled maintenance. It is measured as the average of the differences between the scheduled downtime and the actual downtime (to the nearest quarter-hour increment), as percentages of the scheduled downtime over the course of the contract quarter. | Unclear how this PIM would be measured. Request clarity on the measurement approach. | 22 SOPS maintains the operational schedule and documents equipment status (uptime, downtime). | |
| 34 | Incentive Plan | Page 14, Line 291 ( and others) | Table A, PIM No. 9: CAR Response Time, Source PWS 3.6.3.26. | |||
| PWS 3.6.3.26: Provide acceptable cause and corrective action response ... | There is not a CDRL or DID. What constitutes acceptable responses? There are a number of instances where completion criteria could be better defined. Clear definition of expectations improves understanding of desired performance outcomes. | No CDRL because a CAR is issued via a The Government contract letter; each CAR will define the criteria associated with response time and acceptability of corrective action. Bidder's Library includes a sample CAR format. | ||||
| 35 | Incentive Plan | Page 9, Para 3, Lines 154-156 | The PIMs are evaluated over the course of the evaluation period and compared to the standards listed in Appendix A. Based on the observed performance, the PIMs are assigned a score for the evaluation period. | Based on the observed performance, as compared to the standards listed in Appendix A, the PIMs are assigned a score for the evaluation period. Suggested change for clarity and conciseness | The Government will review and update the Incentive Plan. |
| 36 | Incentive Plan | Page 14, Table A, PIM No. 4 | PIM uses +/- 3%; | |
| Page 39, Para 3.4.2.1, Line 1-2 uses <=3%, Which value is correct? | ||||
| Recommend changing one of the items to match the other. | The Government will evaluate and finalize with RFP release. |
| 37 | Incentive Plan | Page 14, Table A, PIM No. 7 | References PWS 3.4.8.2, 3.4.8.3 | Should Para 3.4.8.1 be included? Consistency | ||
| See Comment #20 under PWS-Draft | Off-site stock listed repairs are under a CR CLIN. These are not included in the PIM calculation. | |||||
| 38 | Incentive Plan | Page 14, Table A, PIM No. 8 | References PWS 3.4.8.2, 3.4.8.4 | Should Para 3.4.8.1 be included? Consistency | ||
| See Comment #20 under PWS-Draft | Off-site stock listed repairs are under a CR CLIN. These are not included in the PIM calculation. | |||||
| 39 | PWS | All | The efforts and associated costs to provide Operation, Maintenance, and Sustainment of the AFSCN are broad and comprehensive. No significant cost drivers have been identified relative to the D-PWS. However, commercialization of the network or revisions to the 24/7/365 staffing of the RTSs could have significant impact to staffing and associated costs. | Bid and propose CAMMO to the existing configuration. | ||
| 40 | PWS | All | Suggest the Govt require offerors to identify proposed innovations and efficiencies, linked to the PWS requirements, to justify proposed cost savings. Suggest adding an evaluation factor to assess the realism, risk, and implementation schedule of the Offeror’s proposed efficiencies and innovations that will result in AFSCN cost reductions and improved OM&S support. | The Government will evaluate for inclusion in Sections L&M and finalize with RFP release. Offerors should bid and propose CAMMO to the existing configuration. The contractor's approach may include innovations and efficiencies related to personnel and processes to meet the PWS requirements; not proposed technological changes to the weapon systems baselines (automation, commercialization, etc.) which may effect concept of operations and cyber security. | ||
| 41 | PWS | All | There are numerous documents called out in the text of the PWS that are missing from the Compliance Documents table. See separate Word document called “Compliance Document Comments.doc” for a detailed listing of applicable documents. A complete tabular listing of documents referenced in the PWS text will be helpful to all bidders. Is it correct that all documents in this table will be made available in the bidder's library? | The Government will update the compliance document list to reflect documents listed in the PWS and provide updates to the bidders library as needed. | ||
| 42 | PWS | Page 10, Para 1.3, Line 19 | Included at NBAFS are the High Power Uplink (13 meter only), | Is the “High Power Uplink (13-meter only)" the same as what is referred to as the “HPA Uplink Enhancement” in the other site paragraphs? Need clarification. | Yes, this is the same we will update the scope to include all enhancements at each applicable site with a common term. | |
| 43 | PWS | Page 10, Para 1.3, Line 8 | HTS is a dual-sided station consisting of two TT&C antennas (46 foot and 60 foot) and associated automated tracking station equipment. | Two antennas are mentioned for HTS: a 46-ft and a 60-ft. However, we have seen other documentation that shows a third antenna (a 13-meter RBC) being constructed for the “A” side. Is support for this antenna required under the CAMMO contract? If support needed, please address in the PWS. Need clarification. | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS and bidder's library with appropriate documentation. | |
| 44 | PWS | Page 10, Para 1.3, Lines 16-17 | NBAFS is a dual-sided station consisting of two TT&C antennas (13 meter A-side and 14 meter B-side) and associated automated remote tracking station 17 equipment including the HPA Uplink Enhancement. | Only the two (13m and 14m) antennas are mentioned for NBAFS. Has the 46-ft ARTS antenna been decommissioned at this site? Need clarification. | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS and bidder's library with appropriate documentation. | |
| 45 | PWS | Page 10, Para 1.3, Lines 2-6 | Also, at GTS, support will be provided for Data Relay Mission Unique Equipment (DRMUE) and one SBE antenna managed by the National Reconnaissance Office Operations Squadron (NOPS), one Source Asset (SRC-G), and two AFSPC MUE assets requiring Communications Security (COMSEC), Operations and Maintenance support. | The SBE antenna mentioned in this sentence is not listed in Table 2-1 on Page 15. Please clarify. Will this antenna require CAMMO support? Need clarification. | The SBE antenna has been changed to Data Relay Mission Unique Equipment (DRMUE-S). | |
| 46 | PWS | Page 10, Para 1.3, Lines 27-28 | TTS is a dual-sided station consisting of two TT&C antennas (11 meter, and 14 meter) and associated automated tracking station equipment. | Only the two (11m and 14m) antennas are mentioned for TTS. Has the 46-ft ARTS antenna been decommissioned at this site? Need clarification. | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS | |
| 47 | PWS | Page 10, Para 1.3, Lines 28-31 | Included at TTS is the DMSPE and Defense Meteorological Satellite Program Interface (DMSPI) equipment that allows this station to function as a CRS for the dedicated Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) network. | Is the DMSPE support at Thule (TTS) to include the associated DOMSAT connectivity as is stated earlier in Lines 19-20 for the New Boston AFS site? If so, please add. Need clarification. | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS | |
| 48 | PWS | Page 105, Para 4 | Compliance Table: This table contains a mix of items. Some are provided for reference only (e.g., the AFSCN CONOPS), while others contain specific requirements as stated in the text of the PWS. We suggest that Section 4 contain two separate tables: one called “Reference Documents” and the other called “Compliance Documents” to list the documents in the appropriate category for clarity. To be able to distinguish documents provided strictly for reference from those which contain requirements tied to this PWS. | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS | ||
| 49 | PWS | Page 15, Table 2-1 | The AMCS header shows that CAMMO support is required for the noted equipment used for the GPS Alternate MCS, which we know to be located at VTS. However, there is no equipment listed for the GPS MCS equipment located at SAFB. Was it intended for the GPS equipment at SAFB to be included in the CAMMO contract? Need clarification. | GPS Alternate MCS equipment at SAFB is not under CAMMO. The Government will review and update the PWS | ||
| 50 | PWS | Page 15, Table 2-1 | Under the GPS sub-header, there is a row called “ESD and DCC.” Is this DCC the same as the “Distributed Communications Controller” listed four rows below? Both items are marked for support under the “AMCS” column. Please verify that this was the intent. Need clarification. | Yes, this is the same. The Government will review and update the PWS | ||
| 51 | PWS | Page 15, Table 2-1 | In the AFSCN row, there is a note which reads “Reference the AFSCN Specification Tree.” Will this tree be available in the Bidder’s Library? It is not listed in the documents table in Section 4 of the PWS. Need referenced document. | The Government has included the AFSCN Specification Tree document in the Bidder's Library. The document is a reference, not a compliance document. | ||
| 52 | PWS | Page 17, Para 2.12 | The contractor shall provide the materials, supplies and equipment required to perform the contract tasks unless specifically identified as local purchase in this PWS...When approved by the designated Contracting Officer Representative (COR), directly acquire applicable parts, materials, supplies or vendor services identified as local purchase in this PWS. For purchase actions exceeding $3,000 approval must be obtained from the CO. | Recommend changing amount to $10,000. $3,000 is overly restrictive and may result in delays of critical repairs, etc., waiting for parts to be ordered. | The Government will evaluate and finalize with RFP release. | |
| 53 | PWS | Page 18, Para 3.2.1.1, Lines 36-38 | Plan, prepare, and support satellite operations IAW documents listed in Section 4 of this PWS. These include Operations Change Notifications, Operational Requirements Letter, Operations Directives, and related documents. | The second sentence list several documents, and the first sentence implies these documents are listed in the Compliance Table in Section 4, but they are not apparent. Are they located within one of the other documents cited in the table? Please clarify. | The Government will evaluate and determine if there is an update required for the Bidder's Library and the PWS paragraph 4. | |
| 54 | PWS | Page 18, Paras 3.1.1 and 3.1.1.1 | 3.1.1 Execute the operations, maintenance and sustainment tasks to achieve the AFSCN operational Performance Standards listed below. |
3.1.1.1 Perform the tasks outlined in this PWS to maintain, operate and sustain the AFSCN to meet system requirements outlined in the AFSCN System Specification IAW
3.1.1 Execute the operations, maintenance and sustainment tasks to achieve the AFSCN operational Performance Standards listed below.
3.1.1.1 Perform the tasks outlined in this PWS to maintain, operate and sustain the AFSCN to meet system requirements outlined in the AFSCN System Specification IAW
Page 18, Lines 5-6 are basically a duplicate of Lines 3-4. Could delete Paragraph 3.1.1.and renumber Paragraph 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.
| To keep all PWS task statements at the 4th level (X.X.X.X) from paras 3.1 through 3.7; the duplication was intentional. | ||||
| 55 | PWS | Page 26, Para 3.3.2.8, Line 15 | Will the list of PMIs and other in-garrison checks required for the transportable assets be made available in the bidder’s library? Request for more information. | The Government has included the technical orders for TVCF and TSTR in the Bidder's Library. See TO A2-31R5-4-205-1 |
TO A2-36A11-3-3-2
TO A2-31R2-4-1714-1-1
The Government will include TOs for TRBC an update to the bidder's Library. See
TO A1-31R2-2TSQ271-1
TO A1-31R2-2TSQ271-2
56 PWS Page 26, Para 3.3.2.8, Lines 11-12 Prepare for shipment of transportable AFSCN asset(s) to and from any alternate operational location IAW technical documentation. Please specify the technical documentation mentioned here, under which the transportable AFSCN assets must be prepared for shipment. Need clarification. The Government has included the technical orders for TVCF and TSTR in the Bidder's Library. See TO A2-31R5-4-205-1
TO A2-36A11-3-3-2
TO A2-31R2-4-1714-1-1
The Government will include TOs for TRBC in an update to the bidder's Library. See
TO A1-31R2-2TSQ271-1
TO A1-31R2-2TSQ271-2
| 57 | PWS | Page 29, Para 3.3.3, Lines 24-27 | Provide on-site organizational software support, systems management , operations verification support to all 50 SW communications, mission and mission support systems identified in Table 3-2 and IAW publications listed in PWS, Section TBD, Appendix TBD or commercial manuals if not specified in Appendix TBD. | Please fill in the three “TBDs” with the appropriate information. TBDs. | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS |
| 58 | PWS | Page 29, Para 3.3.3.1, Lines 29-32 | For problems affecting Mission Systems, as referenced in Table 3-2 Software SupportTable 3-2, perform unscheduled maintenance and troubleshoot and analyze problems by executing all government approved procedures/processes necessary to restore operations. | For problems affecting Mission Systems, as referenced in Table 3-2 Software SupportTable 3-2, perform unscheduled maintenance and troubleshoot and analyze problems by executing all government approved procedures/processes necessary to restore operations. Delete extraneous callout to Table 3-2. | The Government will review and update the PWS |
| 59 | PWS | Page 49, Para 3.6.2.5, Line 34 | STD: Model verified to be +/- 5% variance from operational system | Please clarify the base parameter around which the 5% variance is measured. Without having the AFSCN Communications Segment Model referenced in Line 31 made available, the STD is unclear. Need clarification. | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS |
| 60 | PWS | Page 60, Para 3.6.3.16 | Be responsible for any subcontract management necessary to integrate work performed on this contract and be responsible and accountable for subcontractor performance on this contract. Contractors may add subcontractors to their team after notification to the COR. STD: Meet the annual small business utilization requirement | USAF SB utilization goals for 2014 are 25% which is a challenge to obtain on a contract such as CAMMO which requires a specialized skills mix and unique qualifications. Recommend SBU be limited to 23% which also permits greater utilization of large business with required qualification, previous experience, and skills. This is further compounded by the requirement to set aside work for organic depots as part of PPP. | The Government will evaluate and finalize with RFP release. |
| 61 | PWS | Page 61, Para 3.6.3.17 | Public Private Partnership Requirement and Standards | The percentages and associated timelines for PPP are reasonable provided OO-ALC personnel have the required software and programming and/or specific hardware experience/expertise. Regarding the ESD software maintenance - strong C++ and .NET knowledge is required. Further recommend OO-ALC personnel assigned to CAMMO receive ESD-specific training provided by the contractor to include the ESD User's Course and specific mission training. | The Government appreciates the feedback. |
| 62 | PWS | Page 73, Para 3.6.5.3, Line 35 | Review and assess xx documents/year for impacts to operations procedures, workload requirements, crew loading, crew communication, crew task assignments, maintenance, and logistics. | Need xx number of documents filled in. Missing number. | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS. |
| 63 | PWS | Page 88, Para 3.8.2.2, Lines 2-4 | Document and execute an Industrial Safety Program that complies with the Occupation Safety and Health Act of 1970 (US Public Law 91-596) and 29 United States Code (USC) 654 and the standards identified in PWS Paragraph X.X. | Need Paragraph X.X reference filled in. Missing paragraph number. | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS |
| 64 | PWS | Page 9, Para 1.3 | There is no mention of a 23-foot antenna in storage at VTS as referenced in the AFSCN Configuration Chart provided on FBO (15 Apr 2013). Is this antenna still in storage there, and is any support required for this antenna as part of the CAMMO contract? If so, please add to the PWS. Need clarification. | The PWS is accurate. The updated AFSCN Configuration Chart is included in the BL. | |
| 65 | PWS | Page 9, Para 1.3, Line 28 | This equipment includes the High Power Amplifier (HPA) Uplink Enhancement, the Low Power Uplink Enhancement (LPUE), Payload Test Facility Interface (PTFIF), VTS Interface Systems enhancements, a DSCS terminal and one Source Asset (SRC-V). | This equipment includes the High Power Amplifier (HPA) Uplink Enhancement, the Low Power Uplink Enhancement (LPUE), Payload Test Facility Interface (PTFIF), VTS Interface Systems enhancements, a DSCS terminal and one Source Asset (SRC-V). A “DSCS Terminal” is referenced in this VTS paragraph. However, Table 2-1 on Page 15 indicates that all the DSCS terminal equipment is part of EOSOF, as none are listed under the VTS column. If this is the case, then the DSCS Terminal reference should be removed from Line 28, since Line 21 (EOSOF paragraph) already covers this terminal. | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS |
| 66 | PWS | Page 9, Para 1.3, Lines 42-43 | GTS is a dual-sided station consisting of two TT&C antennas (60 foot and RBC) and their associated automated tracking station equipment, which includes the HPA Uplink Enhancement. | This mentions two antennas at GTS. However, we have seen other documentation that shows a third antenna (the ARTS-C) as “hibernating.” What support, if any, is required of this antenna under the CAMMO contract? If support needed, please address in the PWS. Need clarification. | CAMMO will normally support (OM&S) two antennas at GTS. A hibernating side is in a standby state - antenna/core powerd off with only minimal yearly PDM checks for corrosion, etc. ARTS-C at GTS has been returned an operational state while GTS-A is offline undergoing transformation to a Hybrid antenna. Once GTS-A is operational, ARTS-C may be returned to a hibernating state to be available to support future Hybrid projects. Transistion into and out of hibernation status will be covered under DMA as defined in the PWS. |
| 67 | PWS | Page 95, Table 3-10 | This table contains the "CTS" site in the header. However, CTS is no longer mentioned anywhere else in this new version of the PWS. Should that column be deleted? Need clarification. | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS | |
| 68 | PWS | Pages 100-103, Para 3.9.1 (and subparagraphs) | Transition - Phase In | a) Please provide facility floor space and other specific facility requirements necessary to transition the ATB, ESD training Suite, the EDI, and other GFE and GFP. |
b) Request the Govt specify when AFSCN L2 maintenance (WBS 3) needs to transitioned from SCNC to CAMMO.
c) Please confirm the current garrison locations of the TRBC, RSTR, and TVCF and the timeframe they will need to be relocated to SAFB (if required). a) ATB covered in Industry Day briefing slides; GFE and GFP lists is included in the BL.
b) Transition of all PWS tasks begin at contract award.
c) TRBC and TVCF are currently at SAFB. RSTR will be removed from CAMMO PWS requirements
| 69 | PWS | Pages 105-109, Para 4 | The Compliance Documents table lists numerous documents which were not in the previous PWS version, but also are not mentioned in the text of the new PWS as to how they apply to specific requirements. See separate Word document called “Compliance Document Comments.doc” for a detailed listing of applicable documents. Bidders will need to know how each document applies to specific requirements in the text of the PWS. | The Government will update the compliance document list to reflect documents listed in the PWS and provide updates to the bidders library as needed. | |
| 70 | PWS | Pages 110-117, Acronym List | Please add the following acronyms to the Acronym List: AMCS, NOG, SBE, SCS, SMC, RNL. Requested these additions to acronym list to aid the reader. | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS | |
| 71 | PWS | Pages 55-58, Para 3.6.3.7 through 3.6.3.12 | All requirements associated with contractor information technology and protection. | D-PWS paragraph 3.6.3.9: Recommend reporting parameter be revised from 24 hours to 72 hours consistent with other similar programs and to reduce operating costs. Overall, compliance with the D-PWS IA-related requirements is not a significant cost driver. | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS |
| 72 | PWS | Pages 81, Para 3.7.3.7 | As directed by the PCO or authorized representative, purchase licenses, service contracts, warranties and subscriptions as approved by the Government. Assume maintenance responsibility upon warranty expiration. Notify software license GPO via e-mail when renewal of licenses, service contracts, warranties and subscription services are complete. | We see no issues associated with moving this task to contractor control. Recommend this be cost reimbursable CLIN as the level of effort is difficult to estimate accurately. | The Government will evaluate and finalize with RFP release. |
| 73 | PWS | All | Potential cost drivers (new areas in the latest PWS) include 1) increased emphasis on Information Assurance and Cyber, 2) undefined “support” areas requiring TS/SCI clearances, 3) Untailored compliance documents and CDRLs | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS | |
| 74 | PWS | All | Review and analysis of the revised PWS released 4 February is still underway. In order to perform an adequate analysis, workload factors for the PWS tasks/requirements is necessary and many are still undefined in the current version. No validated FTE estimates are available at this time but estimates will be available in the future as our analysis and the PWS matures. | The government will not provide a workload factor. | |
| 75 | PWS | All | Government uses the words 'approximately' and 'average' for a number of scope areas across the PWS. | Not using definitive workloads within the PWS causes ambiguity in fully understanding the required effort. Clarification of workload requirements. | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS |
| 76 | PWS | All | Performance Incentive Metrics | Please include the PIM number in the PWS to ensure consistency, Completeness. | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS |
| 77 | PWS | All | 1) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 18, sec 3.1.1.1, lines 9 & 10 |
2) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 18, sec 3.1.1.1, lines 12, 16 & 18
3) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 20, sec 3.2.1.4, line 13
4) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 20, sec 3.2.1.5, line 27
5) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 20, sec 3.2.1.6, line 36
6) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 21, sec 3.2.2.1, line 15
7) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 22, sec 3.3.1.2, line 18
8) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 22, sec 3.3.1.3, line 31
9) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 24, sec 3.3.1.8, line 9
10) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 22, sec 3.3.1.3, line 31 1) AFSCN CUE Vol 1 and 2 are in the body of the PWS – requirements referenced to them but they aren’t listed in the COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS table
2) 50 Space Wing (SWI) 10-220 is has requirements referenced in the body of PWS but is not listed in the Compliance Document Table.
3) Paragraph requires task to conform to generic “technical orders”
4) Paragraph requires task to conform to Network Task Order which is not listed in sec 4 (Compliance Docs)
5) Paragraph requires task to conform to reports but they aren’t defined or listed in comp doc table.
6) Task requires compliance w/DISA Circular 800-70-1 but it’s not included in Compliance Table.
7) Task requires compliance w/TO 31Z-10-37, but it’s not included in Compliance Table.
8) Paragraph requires task to conform to TO 33K-1-100 and TO 33-1-27 but they aren’t included in compliance documents table.
9) Task requires compliance w/ SWI 10-215, but it’s not included in Compliance Table.
| 10) Paragraph requires task to conform to Air Force Occupational Safety and 16 Health (AFOSH) but isn’t identified in compliance documents table. Should the reference in the PWS body be AFI 91-301 which is in the compliance section? List the specific documents in section 4, "Compliance Documents" table. | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS | |||
| 78 | PWS | All | 1) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 29, sec 3.3.3, lines 26-28 |
2) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 33, sec 3.3.4.2, line 25
3) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 34, sec 3.3.4.6, line 22
4) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 34, sec 3.3.5.1, line 32
5) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 36, sec 3.3.7.1, Lines 3 - 5
6) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 38, sec 3.4.1.1, line 5
7) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 40, sec 3.4.6.1, Line 13
8) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 42, sec 3.4.8.3, line 5
9) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 43, sec 3.5.1.1, line 17
10) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 46, sec 3.5.3.3, lines 2 & 3 1) Should all TBDs be removed from PWS?
2) Paragraph references AFI 23-111 but it’s not included in compliance doc table.
3) Paragraph references 32-7086 but it’s not included in compliance doc table.
4) Paragraph references ESE-TP-0023 and ESE SIT-0001 but they are not included in compliance doc table.
5) Paragraph uses a reference to “NRO Functional Support Agreement for Mission Unique Equipment between National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and 50 NOG”. Should the agreement be defined?
6) Paragraph references “AFSCN CCB OI”. Should the OI be identified with a specific number?
7) Paragraph uses a reference to “AFSCN CCB OI 61-4”. Should OI be listed in section 4?
8) Paragraph has a generic reference to “CSWS Guide”. Should the Guide be identified with a specific number?
9) Paragraph references AFI 23-110 but it’s not included in compliance doc table.
| 10) Paragraph references TO 33K-1-100 and 33=1=27. Should the TOs be included in section 4? | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS | |||
| 79 | PWS | All | 1) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 48, sec 3.6.2.2, line 23 |
2) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 52, sec 3.6.2.12, lines 10 & 11
3) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 62, sec 3.6.3.24, line 22 & 24
4) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 65, sec 3.6.4.6, line 17
5) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 67, sec 3.6.4.8, lines 12 & 13
6) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 67, sec 3.6.4.8, line 14
7) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 71, sec 3.6.4.18, line 30
8) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 72, sec 3.6.4.19, lines 6 & 7
9) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 72, sec 3.6.4.19, line 7
10) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 73, sec 3.6.5.1, lines 6 1) Should reference to DODD 5000.1 match the number in section 3 “DODD 5000.01?
2) Paragraph has a reference “AF Research, Development, Test and 10 Evaluation (RDT&E) Guide”. Should it be included in section 4?
3) The paragraph has references to DODI 5000.64 and AFI 33-106. Should the references be included in section 4?
4) Paragraph references AFI 33-150 Volume 2 and section 4 doesn’t identify volume 1 or 2 (just AFI 33-150). Should volume 2 be included in section 4?
5) The paragraph has a general reference to “host 12 base policies and procedures”. Should the references be specific and included in section 4?
6) Paragraph references “AFKAG 1 & 2”. Should they be included in section 4?
7) The paragraph has a reference to DOD 8570.01-M but it’s not listed in section 4. Should the reference be included in section 4?
8) Paragraph references DoDD 8500.01. Should it be DoDI 8500.01 which is in section 4?
9) Paragraph references DoDI 8500.02. Should it match the entry DoDI 8500.2 which is in section 4?
| 10) Paragraph referencesTM-86-01H. Should it be listed in section 4? | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS | |||
| 80 | PWS | All | 1) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 73, sec 3.6.5.2, lines 15 |
2) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 73, sec 3.6.5.3, lines 39
3) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 81, sec 3.8.1.1.2, line 8
4) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 81, sec 3.8.1.1.2, line 9
5) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 81, sec 3.8.1.1.2, line 14
6) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 83, sec 3.8.1.2.1, line 11
7) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 83, sec 3.8.1.2.2, line 25
8) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 83, sec 3.8.1.3.1, line 31
9) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 84, sec 3.8.1.3.4, line 10
10) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 84, sec 3.8.1.4.3, line 10 1) Paragraph references ASE Y14.24M. Should it be listed in section 4?
2) Paragraph references SWI 33-114. Should it be listed in section 4?
3) Paragraph references AFI 33-220. Should it be listed in section 4?
4) Paragraph references MPTO 00-33A-1108. Should it be listed in section 4?
5) Paragraph references SWI 33-114. Should it be listed in section 4?
6) Paragraph references” Electronic Records Management (ERM) Guide v7.4”. Should it be listed in section 4?
7) Paragraph references” AFI 33-360”. Should it be listed in section 4?
8) Paragraph references” AFI 33-106”. Should it be listed in section 4?
9) Paragraph references” AFI 33-106”. Should it be listed in section 4?
| 10) Paragraph references ”SOPS Instruction 10-203”. Should it be listed in section 4? | The Government will update the compliance document list to reflect documents listed in the PWS and provide updates to the bidders library as needed. | |||
| 81 | PWS | All | 1) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 88, sec 3.8.2.3.1, line 27 |
2) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 94, sec 3.8.4.2, line 26
3) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 96, sec 3.8.5.5.3, line 6
4) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 96, sec 3.8.5.7, lines 30 & 31
5) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 98, sec 3.8.5.10, line 2
6) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 101, sec 3.9.1.7, lines 21 & 22
7) RFP Reference: PWS, pg 105, sec 4, line 10 1) Paragraph references ”50 SWI 91-205”. Should it be listed in section 4?
2) Paragraph references ”IAW DoD 5200.1-R”. Should it be listed in section 4?
3) Paragraph references ”AFSPCI 32-1010”. Should it be listed in section 4?
4) Paragraph references ”29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 30 1910.120 & 1910.1200”. Should it be listed in section 4?
5) Paragraph references ”AFSPC/MSEO Policy P05003O”. Should it be listed in section 4?
6) Paragraph references ”DODI 21 5000.64”. Should it be listed in section 4?
| 7) Document Number 50SWI 33-105 has a date of Oct 2020. Should the date be changed? | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS | |||||
| 82 | PWS | All | Throughout document. | In-house cycle time states 30 days (calendar days or working days is not specified). Recommend the Government use a standard terminology for "working days" versus "calendar days" versus "days". | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS | |
| 83 | PWS | Page 105, Para 4 | Section 4. Applicable Directives and Specifications | Many tasks throughout the PWS reference an AF document that provides direction as to how these tasks is to be performed however, those references are not listed in Table 4. Applicable Directives and Specifications. Request a full list of documents and references by which CAMMO tasks are to be performed. | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS | |
| 84 | PWS | Page 105, Para 4 | Section 4. Applicable Directives and Specifications | Many documents listed in Section 4 Applicable Directives and Specifications are not addressed within the PWS. Request documents listed in Section 4. Applicable Directives and Specifications be allocated to their respective tasks within the PWS text. | The Government will review and potentially update the PWS | |
| 85 | PWS | Page 105, Para 4 | Section 4. Applicable Directives and Specifications | Many documents listed in Section 4 Applicable Directives and Specifications do not reflect the most current revision date. Suggest the Section 4 Applicable Directives and Specifications table be updated with the most current revision date to be used by the bidders. | The Government will review and update the PWS | |
| 86 | PWS | Page 105, Para 4 | The following compliance documents have been superseded by a newer version or may have been updated: |
a. 50SWI 10-217, AFSCN users operations instruction, Mar 2001
b. 50SWI 33-105, C4 systems installation standard, Oct 2020
c. AF STD 48-9, EMF radiation occupational health program, Dec 2011
d. AFI 10-601, Operational capability requirements development, Jul 2010
e. AFO 21-118, Improving aerospace equipment reliability and maintainability, Jul 1994
f. AFI 31-101, The air force installation security program, Mar 2003
g. AFI 32-1062, Electrical power plants and generators, Jun 2005
h. AFI 32-1063, Electric power systems, May 2010
i. AFI 33-111, Voice systems management, Mar 2005
j. AFI 91-202, The US Air Force mishap prevention program, Aug 2011
k. AFI 99-103, Capabilities-based test and evaluation, Mar 2009
l. AFSPCI 10-604, Space operations weapon system management, Oct 2007
m. AFSPCI 10-102, Concept Development, Jul 2011
n. AFSPCI 10-103, Capabilities-based operational requirements guidance, Sep 2010
o. DISA Circular 310-130-2, GIG technical control, Apr 2012
p. DISA Circular 310-70-1, Management thresholds and performance objectives, Oct 2012
q. DoD 8510.01, DITSCAP Application Manual, Jul 2000
r. T.O. 00-20-1, Aerospace equipment maintenance inspection, documentation, policies, and procedures, Apr 2013
s. T.O. 00-33A-1001, [blank], Apr 2011
t. T.O. 00-5-18, AF technical order numbering system, May 2013
u. T.O. 00-5-3, AF technical order life cycle management, Jan 2012
v. T.O. 1-1-689-3, Cleaning and corrosion control volume iii, Mar 2005 Recommend Government verification of compliance documents The following are the recommended updates—only the changes are addressed:
a. should be: May 2013 vs Mar 2001
b. should be: Oct 2010 vs Oct 2020
c. should be: AF OSH STD 48-9 vs AF STD 48-9
d. should be: Nov 2013 vs Jul 2010
e. should be: Improving Air and Space Reliability and Maintainability, Oct 2003 vs Improving aerospace equipment reliability and maintainability, Jul 1994
f. should be: Aug 2013 vs Mar 2003
g. should be: Jul 2010 vs Jun 2005
h. should be: Jun 2010 vs May 2010
i. should be: Jul 2006 vs Mar 2005
j. should be: Aug 2013 vs Aug 2011
k. should be: Oct 2013 vs Mar 2009
l. should be: Jul 2011 vs Oct 2007
m. should be: Mar 2013 vs Jul 2011
n. should be: Sep 2012 vs Sep 2010
o. should be: Oct 2012 vs Apr 2012
p. should be: Apr 2012 vs Oct 2012
q. should be Nov 2007 vs Jul 2000
r. should be: Jun 2013 vs Apr 2013
s. should be: General Communications Activities Management Procedures and Practice Requirements vs [blank]
t. should be: Sep 2013 vs May 2013
u. should be: Jul 2013 vs Jan 2012
v. should be: Jul 2008 vs Mar 2005
| The Government will review and potentially update the PWS | ||||
| 87 | PWS | Page 13, Para 2.6 | The contractor shall review new/updated publications (draft and final) to assess technical content and impact to the contract. The contractor shall notify the COR within days of receipt if there are associated costs or potential risk impacts to the contract. | Will “New directive Publications” be provided to the contractor for assessment via contracts action, or will the contractor be responsible for surveillance of the changes in the publications? |
Also, what number of assessments should the bidder plan for in the RFP response?
| The Government will review and potentially update the PWS |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .