Draft_RFP_Responses_to_Comments_and_Atch.pdf

Responses to Industry's Comments on the draft Request for Proposal

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

1 Section B The contract is set up as a one‐year contract for FY16 with Option CLINs for FY17 – FY19 and Award Term Periods for FY20 –

FY23.

The government is seeking substantial change and innovation going forward under this contract. It is difficult to implement and measure progress towards these goals in a one‐year period. Real change and innovation require investment of manpower and funds and measurable return on those investments is difficult to assess in only one year. We suggest that the government consider establishing a three‐year base period with five award term option periods. The three‐year base will provide the government with a more reasonable period to assess the return on the investments made and innovations that have been implemented.

Annual appropriation laws do not allow the Government to enter into a contract for severable services for a period of performance longer than one year. The fact that at least a portion of the TOS contract will be funded with one‐year money is also a rationale for a 12‐month performance period.

2 Section B CLIN001 is set up as Firm Fixed Price and CLINs 002‐004 are identified as Cost Plus Award Fee CLINs. All option and award term CLINs (005 – 0025) have no identification of contract type.

We assume that the contract type for CLINs 005 – 025 is also Cost Plus Award Fee since they are parallel CLINs to 002‐004. Is this assumption correct?

Yes, contract line item numbers (CLINs) 0005‐0025 will be cost plus award fee. The Government’s contract writing software does not allow input of the contract type until the option year is exercised.

3 Section B The identified CLINs 001‐025 do not have associated contract funding values.

We understand that it is our responsibility to fill in associated costs for each CLIN and to submit the completed Section B in Volume V, Contract Documentation. But will the government provide an anticipated total annual funding level for the TOS contract? Evaluation of the existing contract indicates that the current contract structure has a total contract value of ~$2.8B and an award fee pool of ~$100M for the 10‐year contract period. But it is unclear what percentage of those funding levels is attributable to what is being defined as the TOS scope. An understanding of target annual funding levels would aid in our internal business assessments of the financial evaluation of this bid. CLARIFICATION: What does AEDC anticipate the annual FY funding level to be for the TOS contract beginning in October 2015?

The Government intends to fund the estimated price of the contract (including award fees). The annual funding level anticipated for the TOS contract in FY16 is anticipated to be ~$226M (including award fee).

4 L‐2.2 Organization/ Number of Copies/ Page Limits

The Draft RFP states “The attachments identified in the table shall be separately bound in three‐ring, loose‐ leaf binders, as necessary.”

We would suggest that flexibility in binding be provided for Volume I, Executive Summary. The smallest available three‐ring, loose‐leaf binder (1/4”) is designed to contain 50‐100 sheets of paper and is oversized for the 12‐page limit. Would DOE allow the Executive Summary to be bound in another manner?

No, the requirement for three‐ring, loose‐leaf binders is to facilitate the evaluator's review of proposals.

7/18/2014 5:32 PM Page 1 Draft RFP Comments MASTER ‐ TEST.xlsx Responses

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

5 L‐2.2.1.1 Page Size and Format

In paragraph (a), the Draft RFP states “Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12‐point Times New Roman font.”

Paragraph (b) states “Legible tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedule, plans, etc.” It also states “For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no

12‐point font is very large for use within graphics. We respectfully request that the government allow the use of smaller font within tables, charts, graphs, and figures so long as the text remains legible per your instructions in the first sentence of paragraph (b).

The Government will require font size in graphics to be no smaller than 8 point in order to be legible. Text size shall remain at 12‐ point Times New Roman font for all other areas.

6 L‐2.3 Electronic Offers

The Draft RFP states “The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable and searchable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2010, MS Office Excel 2010, MS Office Project 2010, and MS Office Power Point 2010, as applicable.”

We recommend submitting the proposal files for all volumes as Adobe pdf files (except for cost spreadsheets in Excel) for all electronic submittals for the following reasons.

1) The search function of Adobe Reader (a free, downloadable software) provides the SEB the desirable capability to search the entire document for key words, including within graphics. MS Word does not currently support searching graphics (usually inserted into Word documents as jpg files) for keywords.

2) Adobe allows the submittal as “read only” files to protect the file from the possibility of inadvertent changes. While providing files that are compatible with MS Office 2010 ensures the ability to open the document, it does not ensure maintaining the integrity of the document. Word files open differently depending on the version and the specific computer configuration. This raises the probability that proposal files will open in a manner where page breaks have shifted and graphics have moved, making the evaluated document somewhat different than what was actually submitted. This, in turn, makes the document difficult to follow and understand (graphics can often move several pages away from their intended locations), and makes it difficult to assess compliance with the page limits.

Would the government consider allowing the submittal of all electronic file requirements as Adobe pdf files, with cost spreadsheets remaining in Excel format?

Yes, offerors may submit proposal files in a format readable by Adobe Acrobat (except for cost spreadsheets in MS Office Excel 2010).

7/18/2014 5:32 PM Page 2 Draft RFP Comments MASTER ‐ TEST.xlsx Responses

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

7 Section L.4 Section L.4 provides overall instructions for the Technical Volume and defines the format and specific content for our proposal response.

It is organized into four subfactors to present:

1) Technical Operations

2) Management Approach

3) Qualified Personnel

4) Innovations and Efficiencies

We believe that the government evaluators would benefit from gaining a clear understanding or our management and organization as a framework for evaluating our approach to technical operations. In fact, we believe that an effective management approach should be fully integrated with the technical approach so it can be more effectively communicated and evaluated as an integrated approach. To this end, we request consideration of the following realignment of the instructions for the Technical Volume.

1) Preferably, merge subfactors 1 and 2 into a single subfactor entitled Management and Technical Approach and include an initial instruction that would ask for Offerors to provide an overview of their organizational structure and management systems and processes before specifically addressing the current five sub‐elements of Technical Operations and six sub‐ elements of Management Approach.

2) Alternatively, reverse the order of the first two subfactors and ask for Management Approach first, with the same suggestion that the Management Approach requirements be modified to specifically ask for a description of the Offeror’s organizational structure and management systems and processes before addressing the current six sub‐elements of Management Approach.

With respect to #1, the Government believes it is necessary to separate between the Technical and Management Approaches and does not plan to combine them. For #2, all subfactors have equal rating, and the order in which the subfactors are arranged do not pre‐determine the order of elements presented in your proposal.

8 L‐4.2.5.4 Transition/ Phase‐In Management

The Draft RFP states “Provide a detailed transition/phase‐in plan . . . .”

Our experience is that a detailed Transition Plan addressing the requirements of Section L‐4.2.5.4 may be in the range of 15‐ 20 pages. Rather than requiring the full plan in response to Section L‐4.2.5.5 as an integral part of the page‐counted proposal, we suggest that this section should be a text overview of our approach to transition and that the formal plan should be submitted in either Volume IV, Cost/Price, or Volume V, Contract Documentation outside of the page limitations.

The Government decided that the Transition Plan should be included in the page count limitation and that it is not unrealistic that the Transition Plan should account for up to 10 percent of your overall proposal.

9 L‐4.2.5.5 Subcontracting Management

The Draft RFP states “. . . the Offeror shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 52.219‐9 .

Our experience is that a FAR‐compliant Small Business Subcontracting Plan may be in the range of 10‐15 pages. Rather than requiring the full plan in response to Section L‐4.2.5.5 as an integral part of the page‐counted proposal, we suggest that this section should be a text overview of our approach to small business subcontracting and that the formal plan should be submitted in either Volume IV, Cost/Price, or Volume V, Contract Documentation outside of the page limitations.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan should be included in Volume V, Contract Documentation, as it will be an attachment to the contract. The plan will not be included in the 200‐page limitation.

7/18/2014 5:32 PM Page 3 Draft RFP Comments MASTER ‐ TEST.xlsx Responses

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

10 L‐4.2.5.6 Organizational Conflict of Interest

The Draft RFP states “. . . Provide a written mitigation plan which outlines the Offeror’s approach for detecting, disclosing, and mitigating OCI issues and risks in accordance with FAR Part 9.5, including those resulting from teaming arrangements. The plan should reflect the results of the Advisory Multi‐ Step Process, updated with any relevant changes to the Offeror’s and each team member’s or team member affiliate’s particular circumstances.”

A full OCI Mitigation Plan addressing these requirements is likely to be several pages long. Rather than requiring the full plan in response to Section L‐4.2.5.6 as an integral part of the page‐counted proposal, we suggest that this section should be a text overview of our approach to OCI mitigation and that the formal plan should be submitted in either Volume V, Contract Documentation outside of the page limitations.

The OCI Mitigation Plan shall be included in Volume V, Contract Documentation. This plan will not be included in page limitations.

11 L‐4.2.6 Subfactor 3: Qualified Personnel and L‐

4.2.6.1 Key

Personnel

As currently written, the Draft RFP requests the identification of key personnel positions, but not the specific identification of proposed personnel or resumes for those personnel. The Draft RFP does not request that the Offerors participate in an orals discussion.

The Draft RFP and the associated Statement of Objectives places a very strong emphasis on leadership, establishment of a culture of employee empowerment, and the delivery of innovation and efficiencies in future operations. The evaluation criteria for this bid places a heavy emphasis on your evaluation of potential risk of each Offeror’s proposal to mission delivery. We have a concern that providing no mechanism for the evaluators to meet and personally evaluate our leadership team provides an inherent advantage for the incumbent. In order to properly evaluate our leadership team and their ability to deliver the desired culture, innovation, and efficiencies, we recommend that the Final RFP ask for specific identification of the key personnel and provide for an orals session as an integral part of the evaluation for Subfactor 3.

As an added suggestion, the Final RFP could shift Subfactor 2, Management Approach, to an orals setting and adjust the page count for the written proposal accordingly (perhaps change from 200 pages to 100 pages). The formal presentation of the Management Approach by the proposed leadership teams in an orals setting would provide the evaluators with an opportunity to assess not only the content and value of the approach, but the credibility and the capability of the leadership team to deliver the approach.

Evaluation of individual key management personnel has been removed from the Past Performance factor, and those submissions will not be considered. However, as stated in the Past Performance Questionnaire, the team will evaluate how well the Contractor has provided proposed key leadership, management, and technical experts.

7/18/2014 5:32 PM Page 4 Draft RFP Comments MASTER ‐ TEST.xlsx Responses

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

12 L‐5.3.3 Relevant Contracts and Recency Determination

In the first paragraph of this section, the Draft RFP states “Also provide Past Performance Information on up to three (3) recent contracts for each of your major subcontractors and key management personnel that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort.”

The Draft RFP goes on to limit the period of relevancy to four (4) years.

We are confused about the request for contracts relative to key management personnel since specific identification of key personnel is not required. We fully understand the requirement for relevant contracts of our team members, but we suggest that the reference to key management personnel be deleted.

The reference to a four (4) year limit on relevancy in regard to key personnel provides a perceived significant advantage to the incumbent. Deletion of the reference to key personnel in the Past Performance section would also eliminate this concern.

Evaluation of individual key management personnel has been removed from the Past Performance factor, and those submissions will not be considered. However, as stated in the Past Performance Questionnaire, the team will evaluate how well the Contractor has provided proposed key leadership, management, and technical experts.

13 L.6.5.3 Transition/ Phase‐In Period

M.2.4 Cost or Price Factor

The Draft RFP asks for a firm‐fixed‐ price for Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) 0001 for transition.

Section M.2.4 states “The Offeror’s Cost/ Price proposal will be evaluated by the Most Probable Cost (MPC) computed by the Government for the basic requirements (basic award), option periods, award term periods, and transition/ phase‐ in.”

We are fully supportive of the need to submit a transition approach, a detailed Transition Plan, and a detailed cost estimate for transition. We are concerned, however, that evaluation of the transition/ phase‐in cost would provide a significant advantage to the incumbent who is likely to have a much lower cost.

We suggest that while all of the existing requirements be maintained, the specific reference to transition/ phase‐in cost be deleted from Section M.2.4 and that transition costs not be specifically evaluated.

The Government will remove transition / phase‐in costs from Section M.2.4, and they will not considered during the calculation of most probable cost.

7/18/2014 5:32 PM Page 5 Draft RFP Comments MASTER ‐ TEST.xlsx Responses

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

14 L.7.3.4.6.2 Contract Performance Work Statement

(CPWS)

The Draft RFP requires that the Offerors provide a revised CPWS that “. . . expands upon minimum requirements to achieve the Commander’s objectives over the life of the contract.” This requirement makes specific reference to integrating the Offeror’s approach to achieving the Statement of Objectives into the

CPWS.

The CPWS is to be included in the Technical Volume as a non‐page counted insertion. But there is no reference to it either within the four (4) subfactors or in the Section M Evaluation Criteria. Development of the CPWS will be a substantial effort and will address all elements of the PWS, not just the selected elements called out in Subfactors 1 and 2 of Section L. We suggest that the CPWS become an evaluated deliverable with equal weighting to the existing four (4) subfactors.

Section M.2.2.3 will explain how the Contractor Performance Work Statement (CPWS) will be used during the technical evaluation.

15 M‐2.2 Technical Factor

Measures of Merit (throughout all subfactors)

In general, the Measures of Merit basically recite the Section L requirements. The Draft RFP places heavy emphasis on the Statement of Objectives language from objectives/vision/ goals (e.g., culture change, collaboration, innovation, leadership, engaged workforce, etc.). We suggest that many of these “challenge words” associated with the Statement of Objectives be integrated into the Measures of Merit to ensure that approaches that add value to the execution of this contract and are beneficial to the government are sufficiently evaluated across the full proposal, not just in the Innovations and Efficiencies subfactor.

Please note that Sections L and Section M need to tie very closely together. In addition, the offeror's proposal and Contractor Performance Work Statement (CPWS) should reflect implementation of the SOO goals. Subfactor evaluations will consider the proposal and CPWS.

7/18/2014 5:32 PM Page 6 Draft RFP Comments MASTER ‐ TEST.xlsx Responses

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

16 General N/A AEDC has established very revolutionary/visionary goals and objectives which the prospective Offeror is to integrate into their proposal.

1. To develop a forward looking Management and Technical approach to assist the Contractor in achieving these goals/objectives it will be imperative that prospective Offerors have a detailed understanding of legacy Information Management Systems (IMS) and architecture that they will be expected to utilize; are they integrated across all AEDC functions (CMMS, Finance, Engineering, Scheduling, Timekeeping, Quality, Safety, Environmental, Procurement, Supply, Logistics, etc..)?

2. We understand from the Robinson/Liner brief that there are existing systems and some are planned for replacement; will these systems be integrated across all AEDC functions/contracts?

3. Can Offerors propose additional systems to replace legacy systems?

4. Can Offerors propose additional systems to more effectively integrate all AEDC functions for both Government and Contractor Management teams’ benefit?

5. Can Offerors propose non‐legacy systems that provide the potential for increased opportunities to realize efficiencies over the life of the contract? If so, will the Government entertain porting legacy data over to the new systems upon successful beta testing and standing down the legacy systems?

6. The demarcation between the NETCENTS and TOS is not well defined. Could the Government provide a more definitive clarification so that the Offeror can realistically respond to the effort?

1. Yes, we consider these system functions to be integrated across AEDC.

2. Yes, the Government plans for these systems to be integrated across all functions / contracts. However, the final solution has not been approved. We will provide the solution prior to release of the final RFP.

3. No, however the contractor is free to use any system of their choosing for their corporate purposes. AEDC will not host any of these corporate systems on any AF or DoD network.

4. Yes, offerors can propose corporate systems for integration as they determine to be appropriate. However, all systems used for the operation and maintenance of the AEDC mission will be Government procured, owned, and provided. No corporate systems will be hosted on any AF or DoD network at AEDC.

5. No, all systems used for the operation and maintenance of the AEDC mission will be Government procured, owned, and provided. AEDC will not host any corporate systems on any AF or DoD network.

6. The Government will provide network diagrams and equipment lists in the competition library prior to the final RFP.

17 General N/A As we discussed with the government at our initial one‐on‐one meeting, it is critical that the non‐incumbent have access to as much information as possible to support the accuracy of our offer. For example, it would be valuable to have access to a complete list of subcontractors to ATA in order to understand the level of effort associated with novation of subcontracts during transition. Similarly, we would benefit from access to information such as the government’s existing risk list for the site, any independent assessments of the AEDC operations that may provide insights that would inform our approach, a list of all existing systems and software utilized on the contract, which PWS requirements they specifically support, and whether these are government‐owned and will be provided to the succeeding contractor or ATA‐proprietary and must be replaced.

The Government has provided, and will continue to provide, as much information as possible in the competition library. A list of subcontractors which require novation agreements will be provided during transition. Since the current list of subcontractors is subject to change, providing the current list would not be beneficial. The Government is unable to provide the risk list. A list of the systems and software that will be provided by the Government in the competition library as soon as it is available. We will not correlate the existing systems and software to specific PWS requirements. The software and systems are Government owned and will be provided to the succeeding contractor.

18 General Offerors generally begin development of their proposals based on the Draft RFP, but the comments/questions provided above have the potential to have significant impacts on the Final RFP. This presents a significant risk to the Offerors in writing to RFP requirements that may change. Based on your current schedule, the Final RFP will not be issued until late August 2014. Would the government consider an interim step before Final RFP to provide feedback on our comments/questions? Specifically, would you consider the issue of a second Draft RFP with any major changes in the timeframe of late July? At a minimum, could the government provide a “change sheet” or Amendments to the Draft RFP that would reflect any major changes to Sections L and/or M?

The Source Selection Office will post responses to potential offeror's comments to the draft RFP by the middle of July. The final RFP will include a changes page to denote the differences from the draft.

19 Para L‐4.2.5.4, L‐ 4.2.5.5, and L‐ 4.2.5.6

Section L, Para L‐4.2.5.4, “Transition/Phase‐In Management,” Para L‐4.2.5.5, “Subcontracting Management,” and Para L‐ 4.2.5.6, “Organizational Conflict of Interest” do not specify whether these plans will be included within the 200‐page limit.

Our experience is that they are not. Please confirm this is the case.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan and the OCI Mitigation Plan will not be included in the 200‐page limitation.

7/18/2014 5:32 PM Page 7 Draft RFP Comments MASTER ‐ TEST.xlsx Responses

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

20 Para L‐4.2.1 Issue: Based upon Section L, Para L‐ 4.2.3, “Technical Risk,” we understand that the RFP requires quantification/qual ification of risks with the Offeror’s approach and includes risks relative to both defined Subfactors as well as risks that may impact successful performance of contract areas (e.g.

PWS, SOO) not identified within Subfactors.

Section L‐4.2.1 does not identify where this risk data should be placed within the proposal.

Suggested Change: Identify a separate paragraph under the Technical Factor, Subfactor 2, “Management Approach,” where bidders can identify their approach to risk management and mitigation.

Risk management and mitigation will be more fully defined in the Management Approach Measure of Merit.

21 Section L, Attachment L‐6 to Attachment 9, Section M, Table

Question: Section L does not specify the type of self‐assessment required; i.e., is a simple check mark in the matrix sufficient or does the Government want us to use the graduated relevancy scale called out in Section M, Table 4?

The relevancy matrix should contain a top level summary of the information submitted in the PPI Tool. Only contract number and check mark indicative of offeror assessment of the areas reflective of relevant experience are required. A narrative discussion should be entered into the PPI Tool not the matrix.

22 Section L, Para L‐

2.2.1.1. (a), Issue: The DRFP stipulates single‐ line spacing.

Suggested Change: For readability, we recommend this be changed to the 1.15 or 1.5 menu options provided in the Word program.

The Government maintains the requirement for single spacing in order to allow potential offerors adequate space to respond to the solicitation.

23 Section L, Para 2.2.1.1(b)

Issue: The RFP stipulates that for “tables, charts, graphs and figures the text shall be no smaller than 12 point.”

Suggested Change: We recommend the font size be limited to no less than 10 point.

Rationale: Our experience is that using 12 point font for graphics significantly reduces information that can be depicted in the graphic and undercuts the overall story from the bidder.

The Government will require font size in graphics to be no smaller than 8 point in order to be legible. Text size shall remain at 12‐ point Times New Roman font.

24 Section L‐6.4.5 and Attachment L‐11

Please confirm that major subcontractors are required to provide only the information specified in Section L‐6.4.5 and Attachment L‐11, and that this information may be provided to the Government in a sealed package, or under separate cover, in order to protect proprietary information.

No, subcontractors must also submit information required by DRFP L‐6.4.4. Both the Schedule of Hours by Labor Skill Mix (L‐6.4.4) and Schedule of Rates (DRFP L‐6.4.5) will be added as tabs within the cost model.

7/18/2014 5:32 PM Page 8 Draft RFP Comments MASTER ‐ TEST.xlsx Responses

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

25 Section L‐6.2, and Section L‐6.5

Should the data required by Section L‐6.5 be provided within Section 2 (per L‐6.2) of the Cost Volume? If not, where should this information be provided?

Yes, the data required by Section L‐6.5 should be provided within Section 2 of the Cost Volume.

26 Section L, Table

6.4.3 and Attachment L‐11, Table 6.4.3 contains slightly different cost elements and format than shown in the Cost Sum tab in Attachment L‐11. In addition, Table 6.4.3 does not include rows for fringe benefits or overhead costs. To minimize errors, please consider using a common format for the two referenced sections.

The RFP will be updated to ensure a common format between Table 6.4.3 and the Cost Sum tab in Attachment L‐11.

27 Section L‐6.4.4, and Section L‐9, Section L‐6.4.4 requires offerors to “submit a schedule showing total proposed hours summarized by labor skill mix (see Attachment L‐9 …) by labor classification ...” Attachment L‐9 requires staffing to be represented as the number of personnel instead of by hours. Please clarify how staffing should be presented.

The RFP will be adjusted to require labor hours on DRFP Attachment L‐9 rather than number of personnel. Also, the information included on Attachment L‐9 will be added as a separate tab to the Cost Model (Draft RFP Attachment L‐11).

28 Section L‐6.4.12, and Attachment L‐11

Section L‐6.4.12 requires offerors to “provide the number of productive man‐hours that make up your average direct man‐ year and insert it in the field provided in Attachment L‐11, TOS Cost Model.” Please clarify where within the TOS Cost Model this data should be provided.

The Cost Model (Draft RFP Attachment L‐11) will be updated to provide a cell (or cells) for the submission of this information.

29 L‐6.4 (all associated subparagraphs) and Attachment L‐11, Recommendation: To facilitate build‐up of proposed costs, we recommend additional worksheets be added to Attachment L‐ 11, including the schedules for staffing, labor rates, and G&A expenses that are required in Section L‐6.4.

Agree. The Cost Model (Draft RFP Attachment L‐11) will be updated to provide additional tabs for this information.

30 Attachment L‐11 Recommendation: That offerors be allowed to add worksheets to Attachment L‐11 to ensure all cost data is included and that formulas can be inter‐linked. We also recommend that Offerors be allowed to modify the formulas, when required, for consistency with disclosed accounting practices; e.g., a separate “Overhead” pool versus “Fringe” pool.

Offerors may add worksheets to the cost model to ensure all cost data is included and that formulas can be interlinked. Offerors may modify the provided formulas, when required, for consistency with disclosed accounting practices. Changes to provided formulas must be noted on the cost model.

31 Attachment L‐11 Recommendation: That the formula for “Total Estimated Cost” in Row 24 include Direct Labor Costs from Row 13 and Fringe costs from Row 17. The “Total Price” in Row 28 should be the sum of Rows 24, 26, & 27. Please modify as required.

Agree. Cost Model formula for "Total Estimated Cost" in Row 24 will be corrected.

7/18/2014 5:32 PM Page 9 Draft RFP Comments MASTER ‐ TEST.xlsx Responses

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

32 Attachment L‐11 Recommendation: On the “FY” tabs, please insert 2 rows between rows 46 & 47 to allow offerors to enter fully burdened Subcontractor Costs & Other Direct Costs, which are included in the offeror’s G&A base per their disclosed accounting practices.

Offerors may make adjustments or add worksheets to the cost model to ensure all cost data is included and that formulas can be interlinked. Offerors may modify the provided formulas, when required, for consistency with disclosed accounting practices.

Changes to provided formulas must be noted on the cost model.

33 Section L‐6.3.3.3 Section L.6.3.3.3 requires the offeror to, “Explain why the cost element requires an average, higher, or lower than average skill mix, as applicable.” Please clarify how the average skill mix relates to cost elements other than labor (e.g., Indirect Costs, Other Direct Costs, Overhead, G&A).

Section L.6.3.3.3 will be updated to eliminate the sentence "Explain why the cost element requires an average, higher, or lower than average skill mix, as applicable."

34 General When the Final RFP is released, we request that the Government provide the RFP in either native format (e.g., MS Word) or searchable/editable PDF. This will allow offerors to more easily complete the required forms, such as the Representations/Certifications and Past/Present Performance Questionnaire, for submission to the Government.

The Government will provide the final RFP in a pdf version which is searchable in Adobe Acrobat Pro.

35 Cover Letter CTF Support and TOS Contractor Responsibilities – The questions below reference the TOS DRFP cover letter (para.

6) and the TMAS Industry Day Range Task Order presentation (Slide

#26 – AEDC FY16

Test Process).

a. The DRFP cover letter states “some Government and contractor personnel [TOS] will be assigned directly to a CTF while other Government and contractor personnel will be matrixed to a CTF. For the TOS contractor employee roles and responsibilities will need to be developed to establish which group of employees is directly assigned, matrixed, or provides support to a CTF.” Does the Government intend for TOS offerors to propose their unique approaches to satisfying CTF needs? Specifically, do the TOS offerors have the latitude to propose both the number and skill levels of TOS employees to be assigned directly to CTFs versus those TOS employees assigned elsewhere and matrixed into the CTF as needed, or will the Government to some degree (or perhaps unilaterally) determine which TOS employees (specifically the skills and skill levels, number/FTEs) will be assigned directly to the CTFs and which will be available through matrixing?

No, the TOS offerors are not expected to propose their unique approaches to satisfying CTF needs. The offeror’s proposed approach is not anticipated to be dependent upon the Government adopting a specific operational construct.

7/18/2014 5:32 PM Page 10 Draft RFP Comments MASTER ‐ TEST.xlsx Responses

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

36 Cover Letter CTF Support and TOS Contractor Responsibilities – The questions below reference the TOS DRFP cover letter (para.

6) and the TMAS Industry Day Range Task Order presentation (Slide

#26 – AEDC FY16

Test Process).

b. Goal #9 of the SOO is to “develop revolutionary CONOPS for immediate application including Government‐led, contractor‐supported combined test force in each mission area.” Relative to Goal #9, slide #26 of the TMAS Industry Day Range Task Order presentation provides distinctions in the responsibilities of the TMAS and TOS contractor for the Complex’s future test process. For some of the test phases listed in Slide #26, there is clear identification of which contractor is accountable (e.g., Client Inquiry, Fabrication, Installation, Test Execution, and Removal. However, it is unclear the level/degree of accountability of the TOS contractor for test phases for which the TOS contractor provides “support.”

Considering all phases have been satisfied by a single contractor under the current contractual arrangement, there is no historical data available to industry to permit understanding as to what degree/magnitude the TOS contractor will be involved in phases listed as “support.” For those phases for which the TOS contractor is expected to “support,” could the Government provide more clarification and characterization of the support for which the TOS contractor will be responsible versus that which the TMAS contractor will fulfill? We also suggest that for any interface point and joint responsibility between the TOS contractor and any of the other future AEDC associate contractors, a clear characterization of the specific responsibilities of the TOS contractor versus the respective associate contractor would be very helpful for all TOS offerors and will better facilitate all offerors’ understanding of the requirements for a reasonable basis of comparison in the proposal evaluation.

See Atch 1, Response to Question No. 36.

37 Cover Letter, H119

The Government requested feedback regarding how to structure the Award Term Evaluation Process. Our suggestions are provided below:

What level of performance should be required before an incentive year is awarded? The award term should require a “cost gate” to be met in order for the contractor to earn an additional term. This cost gate should be mutually agreed to by the Government and the contractor. The contractor must meet or under‐run the cost for the period before an award term option determination can take place. The cost gate should be established for annual periods. We further recommend that award term determination be made based on two years of performance (as with the original ATA award term). We recommend requiring an average award fee score of 90 or above for contract years four and five as the basis for awarding award term for contract year seven. Similarly, we recommend that contract performance on years five and six be used as the basis for awarding the award term for contract year eight. This approach would tend to average out the impacts of extreme workload or budget dynamics that could significantly impact any given year’s contract performance. Clarification to Question #3 as submitted by XXXX on June 19, 2014 (Question #37 on the Government list): XXXX primary recommendation, with respect to the Award Term Evaluation Process, is that the evaluation covers a timeframe of two years in determination of each award term. The dynamic nature of AEDC’s workload and budget process (wherein surges or sags in test workload can create out‐of‐the normal performance challenges), coupled with the potential for singular events to have major impact in a given period, lead us to recommend continuation of this practice as implemented for the first award term under the OMIMS contract. Fundamentally, averaging the inputs for evaluation over a longer period provides a more representative perspective on TOS contractor performance and lessens the potential for an early recompete due to extremes which may emerge and dominate in a shorter evaluation per XXXX’ secondary consideration was to defer the award term sufficiently to enable the contractor to achieve steady state performance in the new operating environment. That would allow for stabilization of processes under the six contract model and maturation of CTF. As such, we recommend the earliest evaluation of performance for purposes of award term determination occur no earlier than the end of the third full year of the contract. In that vein, we propose the award term be shifted toward the latter years of the contract duration.

The award term evaluation criteria should be similar to that of the award fee evaluation process used on this contract. An additional area of evaluation for the award term could be to evaluate the progress in implementing the contractually identified Innovations and Efficiencies. Also, each award term evaluation should include “Special Emphasis Areas” that are unique to that particular evaluation period.

The Government will provide the Award Fee / Award Term plan with the final RFP.

7/18/2014 5:32 PM Page 11 Draft RFP Comments MASTER ‐ TEST.xlsx Responses

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

38 Clause H105, M‐2.4.6

DRFP Clause H105 and Section M‐2.4.6 (FAR 52.222‐46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees) place significant emphasis on workforce compensation, including fringe benefits. On the AEDC Transition Web Site a message from the AEDC Commander states that AEDC will “no longer assert the contractual clauses which have historically protected … benefits during contract transitions … such as … vacation balance, sick leave, and pension.” The pension requirements are explicitly addressed in the DRFP, but vacation and sick leave are not. Will the Government clarify whether offerors’ proposals should be based on the transfer of vacation and sick leave from the incumbent contractor?

The Government is no longer dictating the carryover of benefits (except the Defined Benefit Pension Plan) from predecessor contracts to successor contracts. Offerors must comply with the Service Contract Labor Standards and the Collective Bargaining Agreements.

39 Clause H115 Paragraph (k) of this clause states in part, “a company cannot be a contractor on the TOS contract and perform work at AEDC under the Test Services A&AS contract.” Please clarify if this statement applies to TOS subcontractors as well as the TOS Prime contractor.

Para (b)(1) of Section H115, Organizational Conflicts of Interest, provides a detailed definition of the "contractor."

40 Clause H119 Paragraph (d) of this clause states the Award Fee and Award Term Plan will be provided to the contractor prior to contract award. Will the Government consider providing a draft of this plan to offerors in the Final RFP? This will ensure that performance criteria are properly accounted for within offerors’ proposed approaches and initiatives. In addition, it will be helpful for offerors to understand the relationship between the Performance Measures in the PWS and the performance criteria that will be included in the Award Fee and Award Term Plan.

The award fee / award term plan is being drafted and will be provided upon approval by AFPEO/CM.

41 PWS Meeting Vision 2024 goals will require advanced and highly integrated business and MIS systems not supplied by the Government. It will be important to define the requirements for these systems and evaluate them properly. We understand there are efforts underway to define the Government‐provided MIS functionality, interface requirements, and system availability to contractors. Clarification is needed regarding the obligation for contractors to provide business systems/functions that are required in order to manage the day‐to‐day business and meet statutory, regulatory, and fiduciary requirements of any business entity. We define business systems separately from the Government MIS, understanding that there will be data exchanged. We understand from your Industry Day #4 briefing that we are to provide HR functions, such as benefits administration, recruitment, onboarding, etc. We also understand we are to provide a contractor document management (portal) solution, contractor procurement system, an integrated scheduling capability, and EVM system. Can you please confirm that we are to provide our own financial solution, including HR, payroll processing, accounting, and job cost management, as well as employee expense and timekeeping? It will be important for contractors to preserve their own financial and personnel‐related records in order to maintain compliance with regulatory and other statutes such as OFCCP, or Business Systems Rule (DFAR 252.215‐7002(b)). In addition, other MIS elements may be required to successfully deliver the TOS contract – how will these be assessed? CLARIFICATION PROVIDED: Please see Attachment 1 MIS Systems Functionality.

See Atch 2, Response to Question No. 41.

7/18/2014 5:32 PM Page 12 Draft RFP Comments MASTER ‐ TEST.xlsx Responses

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

42 PWS The GSUs in many cases currently operate with different processes and performance delivery standards than AAFB. The PWS does not distinguish between them. There will be cost/schedule implications for changing the GSUs to the AAFB model; this is especially true for NFAC. Will the Government clarify expectations with regard to the GSUs? If not, will the TOS contractor be expected to conform the GSU operation to be fully compliant with AAFB operating standards within a given timeframe post‐transition?

All "above" AEDC requirements (AFIs, OSHA, AFMCIs, AFTCIs, etc.) apply to all locations unless waived. AEDC requirements can be tailored. In some AEDCIs, the GSUs are permitted to comply with the "spirit and intent" by, with government approval, to write a GSU specific document, e.g., AEDCI 21‐3 Tool Control states, "DoD and operating contractor personnel working at Arnold Engineering Development Complex (AEDC) Tunnel 9, White Oak, Maryland, and the National Full‐Scale Aerodynamics Complex (NFAC), Moffett Field, CA California, will use this instruction as a guide to develop and implement an effective tool control program approved by Operating Location Directors and coordinated through the Test Systems Division."

43 PWS, Att. L‐10 (Table L‐10.2)

We noted several PWS elements that we could not readily identify in the WBS in Table L‐10.2 (see examples below). Will the Government provide more detailed mapping of the PWS to the WBS?

• PWS 3.11, Base Support Assets

• PWS 3.11.5, Pest Control

• PWS 3.11.6, Energy Management

• PWS 3.11.7, Key Control

All PWS elements associated with PWS 3.11 are mapped to AEDC WBS 4.3.1. The mapping shows the approximate linkage between the PWS and the AEDC WBS. No further lower level of detail will be provided.

44 PWS 2.5 This PWS provision requires the contractor to certify critical “Key Positions” as required by the Government. Does this involve application of Government standards/evaluation process or are internally developed training programs allowed?

Who establishes “critical key positions?” Since the contractor may identify and require specific certifications, should this be rewritten to state “Certify key positions including those required by the Government?”

The sub‐bullet referring to "Key Positions" has been removed in the revision of the PWS. This requirement is captured in 3.19.3 with sufficient details to answer these questions.

45 PWS 3.1 There is no mention of any interface with the TMAS contractor in PWS 3.1. Is the TMAS contract work incorporated under “Government?”

TMAS contract work is described in Paragraph 1.2

46 PWS 3.1 Relative to the Performance Standard, how will the T&E customers delineate TOS contractor performance from others involved in the mission?

Customers will evaluate overall performance / satisfaction. Delineating contractor performance is and will continue to be the government's responsibility

47 PWS 3.1.2 and 3.1.4

What is the difference between Test and Analysis Project Plans and SOCs and when are each used (30048 and 30049)? As written, it seems these are both done.

The Project Plan is intended to provide greater fidelity. The intent is that both are required for all test projects. The DID descriptions clarify the difference.

48 PWS 3.1.4.1 Under this PWS element, the contractor is required to assess the suitability of the test, develop the analysis requirements, develop the best approach to meeting the test objectives, and support test technical review boards IAW Air Force Instruction (AFI) 99‐103 and AEDC Instruction (AEDCI) 99‐100. For AAFB tests, the TOS contractor seems to be completely excluded. In terms of data integrity (verification and validation), this will hamper the process and eliminate ability for TOS to bring expertise to bear. Will the Government clarify this requirement?

This PWS section was updated for clarification

49 PWS 3.1.4.2 This PWS requirement states that the Government has the responsibility for coordination and communication with the test customer for on‐site AEDC tests. Due to technical complexities involved in interfacing customer provided instrumentation and controls to the facility, contractor interfacing with the test customer is needed to reduce risk of oversights risking damage to test articles and/or test delays. Will the Government consider rewording this requirement to indicate that the Government has responsibility to coordinate and communicate requirements with the customer, and the contractor will interface with the test customer as needed to obtain detailed supporting information, such as sensor connector types, pin configurations, voltage excitation requirements, sensor calibration information and approaches, data transfer protocols, validation methods, and control systems interfacing details (e.g., max impedance loads). The Government does acknowledge need for this type coordination by the Contractor for test peculiar I&C; however, essentially the same level and detail of coordination is required for any sensors or equipment supplied by the test customer.

This PWS section was updated for clarification

7/18/2014 5:32 PM Page 13 Draft RFP Comments MASTER ‐ TEST.xlsx Responses

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

50 PWS 3.1.4.3 Under this PWS element, test article interfaces for tests at AAFB are presented as entirely handled by the Government. This has typically been a function that includes the test engineer, which was expected to be a TOS requirement and has direct impact on the ability of the TOS contractor to execute the test responsibilities assigned to it under the proposed construct.

Will the Government clarify the TOS contractor’s role in test article interfaces?

This PWS section was updated for clarification

51 PWS 3.1.5 Relative to the Performance Standard, the TOS contractor contributes cost and schedule estimates for portions of the total project and is not involved with the integration of project estimates. Is it reasonable to hold the TOS contractor to this performance standard for compiled project estimates when it only has control over a portion of the elements of those estimates and does not control the integration of various contributions to the final estimate?

The TOS contractor will be held accountable for the cost / schedule elements of the estimate which they have provided.

52 PWS 3.1.5.2 This PWS element describes directing accomplishment of test objectives during testing which will be met by the Government, but there is no clear description of responsibility for directing accomplishment of test related prep or support activities outside of the test periods. Section 3.3 describes the contractor’s responsibility for performing the work, but it is not clear whether the Government or contractor has responsibility for planning and directing accomplishment of these activities. Does the Government also have the responsibility for directing accomplishment of planning and support activities outside of the test periods or is that a contractor responsibility?

Test buildup, installation, modification, and removal is defined in 3.1.4.3. Section 3.3 and 3.6 define the areas where the Contractor has the responsibilities to direct activities. PWS will be updated to clarify these responsibilities.

53 PWS 3.1.6 Please clarify the following with regard to PWS 3.1.6:

• This PWS element describes the preparation of data packages and technical reports for tests, and states that the requirement will be “met by the Government for tests to be conducted at AEDC Arnold AFB.” Does that include the production of technical reports currently supported by technical publications organization in ATA?

• The FY16 Test Process Chart presented at the TMAS Industry Day shows the TOS contractor supporting test data analysis and reporting. With the exception of the GSUs, this is a Government function per PWS 3.1.6. Will the Government clarify this requirement?

The Government will use technical pubs service…