Addtl_Responses_to_Draft_RFP_12Sep14.pdf

Additional Responses to Draft Request for Proposal

Solicitation No. FA9101‐13‐R‐0100, Test Operations and Sustainment (TOS)

12 September 2014

1. Regarding non‐U.S. Government third party AEDC customers:

a. Are there agreements in place to allow non‐U.S. government third parties to use the test facilities at AEDC?

Answer: Because AEDC is a Government facility built primarily to accomplish DoD testing, we are not permitted to compete with private industry for testing efforts. However, we can test for private industry if the required testing is not reasonably available commercially or is required under an existing Government contract. The cost for the testing depends on whether the testing is for commercial, DoD, or other governmental organization purposes. As a Government installation, we are required to stipulate the terms and conditions for use of our test facilities; we do this by use of an

AEDC test contract which contains the required clauses. Testing is provided on a cost‐reimbursement, advance‐payment basis.

Foreign test customers can access AEDC by:

i. FMS (AEDC’s commercial test contract is not utilized; AEDC works directly with Department of State.)

ii. Contracting with U.S. commercial firm who contracts with AEDC:

(1) Arrangement must be meaningful and more than just “pass‐through” arrangement: value added by U.S. partner

(2) Products tested contain U.S. content

(3) Example: McDonnell Douglas‐BAE partnership for AV‐8A &B)

iii. Using U.S. subsidiary

b. In the future, do you expect that such agreements would be executed by AEDC or by the TOS contractor?

Answer: The commercial test contracts are executed by the Government.

c. Do such agreements require the third parties to waive claims against the AEDC’s Contractors?

Answer: The “Liability” paragraph in the AEDC commercial test contract clauses states:

Liability.

a. Indemnification. The contractor / user shall be liable to the government, by indemnification or contribution, for any and all liability of the other party, to any person and / or

3rd party to the extent that such liability is attributable to the acts, omissions, or other negligence of the other party, its employees, subcontractors, or agents. There are no limitations to the amount of liability under this clause.

b. Damage to Government Property. The contractor / user shall be liable to the other for any and all damage to AEDC test cells and / or government property as a result of the negligence of contractor / user, its employees, subcontractors, or agents. The contractor/user, notwithstanding an

12 September 2014 absence of negligence by either party, shall also be liable to the government for any and all damage to AEDC test cells and / or government property as a result of any failure of contractor’s test article or other property, to include any defect in design, construction, or assembly by the contractor/user. The liability described in this subsection, shall be limited to the amounts specified in the “Insurance” paragraph below.

c. Would AEDC include copies of any such agreements in the reading room (redacted as necessary to protect the proprietary information of the third parties)?

Answer: A sample test contract has been added to the competition library.

2. Regarding the pre‐payment credit liability for the site pension plan:

The response to Question 155 in the competition library stated:

No. The TOS contractor will be required to assume the full accumulated pre‐payment credit liability (pay the incumbent) at performance start date. The current estimate for the accumulated pre‐payment credit at the start of FY16 is

~$8.8M.

The response to Question 156 stated:

Para (h) was added to Section H Clause H104, Advance Cost Agreement, clarifying the TOS contractor will assume all accumulated prepayment credit liabilities.

Accordingly, we are assuming that:

i. the new TOS contract will be entitled to amortize the value of the CAS prepayment credit that will be purchased from the incumbent contract on the same basis as if it had accumulated this credit; and

ii. the allowability of these costs will be reflect in an advance understanding of costs.

Please confirm that these assumptions are correct.

Answer: Your assumptions are correct.

3. Regarding the pre‐payment credit liability for the site pension plan:

With respect to the prepayment credit to be purchased from the incumbent contractor, is it AEDC’s expectation that the contractor will be entitled to recover as an allowable cost market rate interest related to this credit notwithstanding FAR 31.205‐20?

Answer: The cost rate equal to the actual rate of return on plan investments is an allowable cost under CAS 412 and 413.

12 September 2014

4. Associate Contractor Agreements

Clause H123 provides that the contractor is to negotiate appropriate Associate Contractor

Agreements (ACA). The schedule in the draft RFP suggest that three of the six associate contracts were to be awarded in July 2014. Will AEDC require that ACAs be put in place for these contractors and, if yes, will AEDC make these available to the bidders for developing their transition plans?

Answer: ACAs will be made available as they are finalized.

5. Regarding Professional Services:

In the response to Question 171, AEDC noted that it interpreted that the “professional services” referred FAR 52.237‐7 to be broader than “medical services.” While we fully understand that the professional services to be provided under the TOS Contract are broader than medical services, our question was directed at the obligations and liabilities specifically referred to in FAR 52.237‐7. As a preliminary matter, we recommend FAR 52.237‐7 be removed from the RFP.

FAR 37.403 provides that the contracting officer “shall insert the clause at 52.237‐7, Indemnification and Medical Liability Insurance, in solicitations and contracts for nonpersonal health care services”

(emphasis added). The stated purpose of the TOS contract however is:

The TOS contract acquires test operations, technology development, equipment and facility sustainment, capital improvements and some support services for

AEDC (PWS, Section 1.3).

It is our understanding that the operation of the medical clinic at AEDC will be part of the FSS contract, not part of the TOS contract. Here, the PWS makes no reference to “health care services”, nonpersonal or otherwise, much less make such services a primary purpose of the solicitation.

(Section 2.1 of the PWS entitled “Non‐Personal services” is reserved.) Inasmuch as this is not a contract “for” health care services, FAR 52.237‐7, and moreover, there are no requirements in this contract for the provision of “physicians, dentists and other health care providers” (FAR 37.401(d)), we believe FAR 52.237‐7 should be deleted from the final RFP.

Although, based on the foregoing, we anticipate that FAR 52.237‐7 should be removed from the final RFP, we further believe that that deeming any of the obligations of FAR 52.237‐7 to apply to other than medical services would be an incorrect interpretation of the contract. Our interpretation is that the obligations in FAR 52.237‐7 do not extend to other professional services to be performed under the TOS contract, such as, and including, engineering judgments that would be applied in conducting testing at AEDC. Any broader reading of FAR 52.237‐7 would be inconsistent with numerous other provisions of the contract.

Importantly, a number of the clauses in the contract would be effectively read out of the contract if the provision that “[t]he Contractor shall be solely liable for and expressly agrees to indemnify the

Government with respect to any liability producing acts or omissions by it or by its employees or agents” covered more than the medical services provided for in 52.237‐7. For example, the contract

12 September 2014 includes a special deviation to FAR 52.228‐7 (Clause I100) that provides among other things that the contractor will be reimbursed for “certain liabilities (and expenses incidental to such liabilities) to third persons not compensated by insurance or otherwise. . .” An exception is made for liabilities that “result from willful misconduct or lack of good faith” on the part of any of the Contractor's managerial personnel. (See subparagraph (e)). Needless to say, “willful misconduct” of managerial personnel is far more limited than any act or omission of any of the contractor’s employees. See also FAR 52.245‐1 that provides limited risk of loss for government property. The basis risk allocations established by the cost reimbursement nature of the contract would be upended if FAR

52.237‐7 were construed to cover more than medical services.

In the event, that the Government determines that it does not intend to remove 52.237‐7, we would be happy to discuss this issue with you further prior to the release of the final RFP.

Answer: Since medical facility operation is part of the Facility Support Services requirement, FAR

52.237‐7, Indemnification and Medical Liability Insurance, will be removed from the TOS RFP.

6. What is the role of TOS (vs. TMAS) in supporting modeling and simulation (M&S)? For example, does TOS provide only technical expertise (e.g., software designers, model instrumentation engineers and technicians) while TMAS is responsible for overall M&S performance and delivery?

Rationale: In order to write a technically sufficient proposal we are trying to better understand the interfaces between TOS and TMAS for testing and evaluation—particularly in the area of computational M&S.

References:

AEDC TOS PWS, Para 1.3 and 3.2

AEDC ATA PWS, Para 1.2

Answer: TMAS would support the Government in maintaining the overall M&S performance capability for the complex and supporting the strategic vision for M&S to meet the needs of future programs. TMAS would be identifying new M&S capabilities that are required to meet the mission needs and analyzing the available M&S tools to identify the direction to proceed, such as using or modifying available tools or developing / purchasing new tools.

The TOS contractor would provide the technical expertise to develop or modify the M&S tools to meet the Complex needs, as well as maintain and use the M&S tools on a project by project basis, and provide the test results needed to support the projects. The TOS would also provide feedback on M&S capability gaps and shortfalls which would improve future capabilities.

7. In addition to the Capital Improvement Project List provided 22 July 2014, please provide AEDC's long‐lead Product Improvement Plans for each suite of test assets to be supported under the TOS solicitation.

Rationale: Without this data available to all bidders with the exception of the incumbent who already has access to the information, an unfair advantage for cost, staffing and technical may occur.

12 September 2014

Reference: PWS 3.8 Capital Improvement

Answer: The AEDC Capability Roadmaps posted on 22 May 2014 in the restricted folder labeled “Test Capability Roadmap” of the FBO.gov TOS solicitation provide long range vision per test capability and are the closest thing to what you have requested that is currently produced or maintained by the Government.

8. (Rationale for Capital Improvement Projects): For each project identified on the Capital Improvement Project List, please provide additional detail on the project rationale and justification to include descriptions of potential efficiencies, cost savings and other material/productivity gains anticipated upon completion.

Rationale: The Capital Improvement Projects, as identified, potentially offer significant, near‐term productivity gains and cost savings, e.g. energy cost savings, maintenance cost savings, labor force reductions, etc. The potential impact across the entire program in terms of staffing and other resource requirements is significant enough that it could provide the incumbent a significant competitive advantage if this additional information is not released.

Reference: Capital Improvement Project List, released 22 July 2014

Answer: The justification and mission impact information for each project will not be released due to operational security sensitivity relating to the capabilities that drive these project requirements.

There are seldom detailed costs savings relating to maintenance, labor, energy, productivity gains, or detailed operations or maintenance efficiencies calculated and documented at this stage of the project by the Government.

9. (WBS Data for Investments): The Government answer to the referenced Question 113c says: “Space and Missiles Investments (2.1.3) estimate was in error and will be adjusted in the RFP; no dramatic change from recent historical workloads is anticipated.” The number of hours for WBS 2.1.3 in the FY13 actuals was 65,675. Should we assume no dramatic change from recent historical workloads means use 65,675 (instead of the 308,855 hrs referenced in Section L, Table L‐10.2)?

Rationale: Clear understanding of anticipated Space and Missile Investments and the impacts on manning/funding.

References:

“Government Response to Contractor Comments on the Draft RFP for Solicitation No. FA91010‐

13‐R‐0100 TOS,” Response #113c

WBS 2.1.3

Answer: Yes, you should assume no dramatic change from recent historical levels. A new estimate will be provided in the workload guide attached to Section L of the RFP.

12 September 2014

10. (Values for Capital Improvement Projects): Total dollar values for Capital Investment Projects per FY in the WBS 2 and WBS 4.3 Capital Improvement Project Lists are reasonably consistent with the exception of FY18. This dollar value is skewed by a $97M demolition project. Is this a typo?

Rationale: Understand projected Capital Investment funding.

References: WBS 2 and WBS 4.3 Capital Improvement Project Lists

Answer: Yes, the cost estimate was a typo. The dollar value should be $10.7M.

11. In the response to the questions and other released data we could find a definition of ‘hot standby’.

At the industry day we believe it was mentioned that this definition would be developed and provided by the government. Our analysis of AFI 21‐101 does not identify ‘hot standby’ as one of the prescribed categories.

Answer: The definition of Hot Standby is defined in the AEDC Strategic Plan 2014, Goal 2. This is the only definition available at this time. We will not be providing further definition nor will we be providing facility replacement costs.

Hot Standby is a new term developed by AEDC and will not be found in an Air Force or other instruction. Hot Standby can be considered a special case of the facility status of “Standby” which is defined by DoDI 3200.18, Management and Operation of the Major Range and Test Facility Base (MRTFB). Appendix A of the TOS Performance Work Statement (PWS) provides the DoDI 3200.18 facility status definitions and identifies AEDC test facilities by these categories. Note that Appendix A does not define nor refer to Hot Standby, and that there are no facilities identified as being in a Hot Standby status.

The following is what we intended to communicate through the briefings and meetings during Industry Day: (1) There are actions outlined under Goal 2 in the AEDC Strategic Plan 2014, which are designed to further develop and define the goal, and these actions are in progress; (2) Since neither a further definition of Hot Standby nor facility replacement costs will be provided to potential offerors, offerors are expected to focus on the intent of Hot Standby and an approach to achieving the intent.

The overall intent of the Hot Standby goal is to: (a) Test within the full envelope that is active today by reconstituting non‐active test facilities or non‐active test capabilities; (b) Make a local AEDC decision to place a facility in a non‐active status: Have an approved plan and funding for placing a facility in a non‐active status and sustaining it in that state (costs, schedule, identified risks understood and approved; and funding allocated through the budget process); (c) Have an approved plan for reactivation of a facility (costs, schedule, identified risks understood and approved when test unit is made inactive); and (d) Minimize the cost of the above while having proper balance between cost, schedule, and identified risk.

The TOS PWS addresses Hot Standby with this requirement: “3.5.3 The Contractor shall develop and deliver plans for transitioning from one sustainment status to another and sustaining a specified status (other than active) when directed by the Government.” and its companion scope statement:

“By direction of the Government, active test cells shall be placed in a non‐operational state or vice‐

12 September 2014 versa, and shall be transitioned and maintained in the new status by the Contractor. Plans shall be developed that document options for actions, costs, and identified risks for the given scenario.”

12. Availability of Staffing Data for AEDC TOS Contract Competition.

In development of our staffing approach for the TOS contract, we have reviewed and analyzed the data made available to the bidders through the AEDC Tech Library. This includes demographic information, FY16 labor hour estimates, etc. However, the present data is insufficient to allow us to define specific labor categories, skill levels within labor categories, staffing levels per the new TOS PWS and employee salaries. Without more detailed information, we will be required to develop our staffing strategy based on survey information, experience and estimates, and assumptions. As a result, our staffing levels, skill assignments for specific tasking, and salaries may have significant deviations from the present incumbent staffing. Further, assuming a contractor was selected who bid and won using only the present data, major disruptions within the workforce may occur both in salaries and numbers of incumbent employees hired. It is likely all non‐incumbent bidders will make widely varying assumptions about labor categories, skill levels, etc., which will result in significant deviations between the various bids and produce difficulties for an objective, traceable source selection.

To maintain the numbers, integrity and capability of the workforce, it may be difficult using the present level of staffing data available. In our experience as an incumbent, we have released this information to the government to protect the incumbent workforce and minimize performance risk to the government.

And, we have seen much more detailed staffing information released on other recent bids we are participating in. We have provided the SS Team with a copy of similar types of information provided to all bidders for the recent Yuma Proving Grounds contract competition.

Answer: Historic workload, resource, and workforce demographic data for salaried and wage grade personnel have been placed in the competition library. We do not plan further release of lower level information.

13. The Section L requirements for the Transition Plan as part of Subfactor 2 (L‐4.2.5.4) state that we should address the transition requirements in the PWS. In turn, PWS 4.2, Transition, simply references

Clause H106. However, Clause H106 describes the transition requirements for the incumbent contractor to support transition to the succeeding contract. In response to questions/comments on the Draft RFP, the AF has stated that it would not be unreasonable for our Transition Plan in the TOS proposal to be up to 10% of the total page count. Will the AF provide, in either Section L Instructions or the Section 4.2 of the PWS, more detail on the transition requirements/expectations for the incoming TOS contractor?

Answer: Section 4.2 of the PWS is being revised to include the transition requirements.

14. Section M‐2.2.3.4, Lifecycle Sustainment, refers to PWS paragraph 3.13, as well as other PWS paragraphs. Paragraph 3.13, however, deals with Data and Documentation for AEDC Configuration

Items. PWS paragraph 3.11, Operations and Lifecycle Sustainment of AEDC Base Support Assets, seems to be a more appropriate reference for this particular Section M evaluation. Please confirm whether

PWS paragraph 3.11 or PWS paragraph 3.13 are the correct cross‐reference for this evaluation criterion.

12 September 2014

Answer: Configuration Management is considered a critical aspect of the sustainment of AEDC test assets and was identified as a risk area for this acquisition. As a risk area, Configuration Management needs to be part of the evaluation criteria as a discriminator. Referencing 3.13 as part of the Lifecycle

Sustainment subfactor was intentional. Accordingly, 3.11 was not intended to be evaluated as part of the Lifecycle Sustainment subfactor.

15. Paragraph L‐4.2.4.4, Capital Improvements, appears to be numbered incorrectly (there are two paragraphs labeled L‐4.2.4.4). Please confirm that this paragraph should be numbered L‐4.2.4.5.

Answer: You were correct; two paragraphs were numbered L‐4.2.4.4. Since we deleted the Test and

Analysis element and renumbered, Capital Improvements is now correctly numbered L‐4.2.4.4.