Additional_Responses_to_Draft_RFP_Comments.pdf

Additional Responses to Industry’s Comments On the draft Request for Proposal (dRFP)

Solicitation No. FA9101-13-R-0100, Test Operations and Sustainment

The Government inadvertently omitted responses to a couple of comments / questions submitted by industry on dRFP; therefore, please see the following:

Question 113

Draft RFP Reference

Attachment L-10 Government Estimate for FY16 – We noted some inconsistencies between the Government Estimate for FY16 (Table L-10.2) and the financial data for FY10 to FY13 provided in the TOS Competition Library. Will the Government clarify the following issues?

Workload guide resource guide (DRFP Attachment L-10) will be adjusted to eliminate differences between Table L-10.1, Test Workload, and Table L-10-2, Government Estimate in Hours, for

FY16.

A. The Table L10-1 test workload lists AMSC as 35,000 mhrs and Technology RBA mhrs as 60,441 for a total of 95,441. However, the Government estimate for 1.3.1 thru

1.3.6 is 82,039 mhrs. The data in the TOS library for RBA and DBA indicates that 1.3.4 is only 38% RBA. This means that the Government estimate for RBA can be adjusted downward to 76,879 mhrs. Can you provide assistance in reconciling the difference between the 76,879 and 95,441 mhrs?

The Government estimate for 1.3.1 through 1.3.6 will be corrected to agree more closely with the workload shown in DRFP Table L10-1. As noted in the answer to 112A (above), the workload in 1.3.4 includes both RBA and TE/ST funded effort.

B. The NFAC workload is listed at 73,049 mhrs for WBS 1.5. This is roughly 40 FTE which is less than the current staff and does not include the management, supervision, and administrative support which are provided in the in-place operational arrangement. NFAC management cost of 1,320 mhrs (<2%) seems inadequate given the complete scope of DBA work defined by the TOS PWS for the GSUs. Can the Government clarify the NFAC requirements and/or estimated staffing?

NFAC workload will be adjusted (increased) and spread between 1.5.1 (increased to ~88,120 hours) and

1.5.2 (decreased to ~30,000 hours).

C. WBS 2.1.3 Space and Missiles Investments is listed as 308,855 hrs.

Space and Missiles Investments (2.1.3) estimate was in error and will

This is a substantial increase over prior years (nearly a factor of 5) and involves approximately 170 FTEs.

Can the Government provide additional details as to the projects being planned in order for offerors to propose the appropriate skills?

be adjusted in the RFP; no dramatic change from recent historical workloads is anticipated.

D. WBS 3.1.4 is listed as ETF Plant Asset Stewardship. Can it be assumed that this is intended to include the costs of all plant assets since no other Government estimate is provided?

Title of AEDC WBS 3.1.4 will be changed to read "Plant Asset Stewardship" (not limited to ETF).

E. WBS 3.1.5, High Pressure Air (HPA), is part of the VKF plant.

What costs for the HPA system are being included in this WBS since the number is very small? Is it only the RBA test support?

WBS 3.1.5 will be eliminated from the TOS proposal WBS, and the hours shown here on this WBS element in the DRFP (which are showing estimate RBA HPA sales) will be incorporated into the hours in 3.1.4.

F. WBS 3.1.6 SREO includes Operator Qualification training. Are the other training requirements for the workforce included within other WBS elements?

Training hours are spread throughout the WBS elements.

G. There is significant work defined in the PWS for Industrial Security, Information Assurance, and Environmental support. These WBS 4 elements are missing from the Government Estimate. Can you provide guidance as to where these functions are accounted for?

While the Industrial Security program is part of the FSS contract, there is nevertheless some workload associated with Industrial Security in the TOS PWS. WBS 4.1.2 will be added to the WBS for TOS to allow a place to account for Industrial Security requirements. While the Information Assurance program is part of the FSS contract, there is nevertheless some workload associated with Information Assurance on the TOS PWS. WBS

5.1.1 should be used to account for Information Assurance requirements along with instrumentation, data, and controls (ID&C) requirements.

While Environmental Support is a part of the FSS and Installation Restoration Program (IRP) contracts, there is nevertheless some workload associated with Environmental Support on the TOS WBS. WBS 4.2 will be added to the WBS for TOS to allow a place to account for Environmental Support.

H. WBS 4.5.1 Logistics Support and Purchasing Government estimate appears to not include the Property Management functions.

The PWS also lacks a requirement for Property Management. Can the Government clarify the Property Management requirements and estimate?

Property Management requirements have been added to the PWS under

3.17.8. Resources need to support

property management should be accounted for in WBS 4.5.1.

I. The Government did not provide an estimate for WBS 5.1.2, but the PWS indicates a requirement for Technical Publication functions and interface to DTIC. Can this be clarified?

WBS 5.1.2 does not have an estimate, and the portion of the PWS referencing Technical Publications and interface to Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) are an NETCENTS-2 requirement and will be removed from the RFP.

Expansion of Question:

We noted some inconsistencies between the Government estimate for FY16 (Table L-10.2) and the financial data for FY10 to FY13 provided in the TOS Competition Library. Please clarify the following issues:

J. With respect to WBS 1.2.5 Modeling and Simulation / Instrumentation and Diagnostics / A&E Technology, the FY13 cost in the TOS Library is 59,630 mhrs. The DRFP Government estimate is 35,893 mhrs.

An adjustment has been made to the FY16 Government estimate increasing the estimate for 1.2.5 Modeling and Simulation / Instrumentation and Diagnostics / A&E Technology increasing from 35,893 mhrs to 44,145 mhrs. A portion of this work is moved to the Test Services effort (approx 17,000 mhrs) associated with Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis.

K. With respect to WBS 3.1.4 Plant Asset Stewardship (labeled as ETF Plant Stewardship), the FY13 cost in the TOS Library is 419,984 mhrs.

The DRFP Government estimate is stated as 330,846 mhrs.

The title of WBS 3.1.4 will be adjusted to read Plant Asset Stewardship. The FY16 estimate for this WBS element has been updated in the FY16 Government estimate increasing from 330,846 mhrs to 422,000 mhrs.

L. With respect to WBS 4.3.6.7 Utilities, the FY13 cost in the TOS Library is 207,356 mhrs. The DRFP Government estimate for “4.3.6 Utilities” is stated as 166,825 mhrs.

An adjustment has been made to the FY16 Government estimate increasing the estimate for 4.3.6 from 166,825 mhrs to 203,159 mhrs.

Question 180

Goal 4 of Attachment SOO-2 of DRFP Attachment 7

Goal 4 of AEDC Vision 2024 states the intention to “reduce customer cost by reducing the staff required to conduct test operations by 50%...” Other goals state intent to grow AEDC’s value-added support in areas such as analysis. Given the current AEDC test project construct which has phases for planning, installation, test execution, removal, analysis, etc., can the Government clarify if Goal 4 is focused on reducing staff required for all phases of testing or if it is more narrowly focused (e.g., focused solely on the installation, test, and removal phases)?

Our concern arises from the fact that reductions in the planning phase can suboptimize the overall delivery of benefit to AEDC’s customers.

Reducing staffing for analysis limits AEDC’s capability to add unique value to test customers. Clarifying the focus of Goal 4 (as it applies to the TOS contractor responsibilities and expectations) will enable bidders to propose approaches aligned with AEDC’s ultimate objectives.

Goal 4 of the AEDC Vision 2024 does not refer specifically to a goal of reducing the test operations staff by 50 percent. The goal is focused more on being able to increase test workload without increasing the people needed to accomplish that workload. In other words, Goal 4 intends to provide up to twice the customer-funded test operations without increasing the associated staff requirements. As to whether or not the goal applies to all phases of test, the answer is no. A separate goal of the AEDC Vision 2024 is to increase the amount of test analysis by 100 percent. Goal 4 deals specifically with the staff required to operate the test cells (air-on hours, user-occupancy hours, number of shots, etc.).