Questions_from_Industry_Post_RFP_for_FBO.pdf

Comment/Questions SSO RESPONSE

In the Final RFP, Section M‐2.2.4.3 Workload Management, references PWS paragraph 3.19.2 (no change from draft RFP). This is part of the evaluation criteria for managing significant workload increases and decreases. In the draft RFP, PWS 3.19.2 stated “The

Contractor shall plan, execute, track, and report resources and work activities for projects.” This seems to be an appropriate PWS citing for the subject of Workload Management. But in the Final

RFP, PWS 3.19.2 states “The Contractor shall provide janitorial services and refuse collection at AEDC Moffett Field.” We assume that this is a cut and paste error that occurred during updates to the Draft RFP and the original Draft RFP language for PWS 3.19.2 is actually the correct language. Is this correct?

The PWS will be amended to revise para 3.19.2 to the language originally provided in the draft RFP version.

We understand that the Government has allowed the use of a minimum font size of 8 point in tables, graphics, and charts.

Would the Government allow the use of sans‐serif font types

(such as Arial or Myriad Pro) rather than Times New Roman in these instances? This will significantly improve legibility at the smaller font sizes.

Section L‐2.2.1.1 will be revised to clarify font size and type in tables, graphics, and charts.

Annex 2 of Attachment 6, Award Fee/Term Plan, provides cross references to the PWS for the respective Evaluation Areas. In the

Evaluation Area for Test Systems Mission Support, however, there seems to be disconnects between the bullet list of sub evaluation areas and the cited PWS references. The third cited PWS reference is 3.9, which is Fuels Management Services. But Fuels

Management Services is not listed as a sub evaluation area.

Conversely, there is a sub evaluation area listed as Information

Protection, but there is no corresponding PWS element with that terminology. Some other PWS descriptions are not the same as those listed in the PWS. In the Evaluation Area of Corporate

Services, for example, PWS 3.17 is titled Acquisition of Supplies, Services and Equipment. In the Award Fee Plan table it is titled

Contract Management. We suggest matching the PWS cross references in this Annex so as to avoid any confusion.

Annex 2 to the Award Fee / Term Plan identifies the Functional Area Chiefs (FACs) by position and their associated performance evaluation areas. The Government will collaborate with the Contractor during the life of the contract to adjust the performance evaluation areas as necessary and establish key performance indicators.

Annex 2 will be amended to reflect direct cross references to the PWS.

In a change from the Draft RFP, the requirements for the full Small

Business Subcontracting Plan and the OCI Mitigation Plan have been moved from Volume II to Volume V, outside the page count.

In both cases, the requirements state that the subject plans shall be included in Volume V, Contract Documentation (see L.7.3.4.2/L‐

7.3.4.3). In Section L‐4.2.6.2, Staffing Plan, the requirements were modified from the Draft RFP to the Final RFP to change from a staffing “methodology” to a staffing plan and it similarly exempts this plan from the page count. And, this plan is now called out to be included in Volume V (L‐7.3.4.4 – “As required by para L‐

4.2.6.2”) but there is no reference in Section L‐4.2.6.2 that the

Staffing Plan should be provided in Volume V as there is with the other two plans. Please confirm that the Staffing Plan should be provided in Volume V and not in Volume II.

Yes, as required by L‐7.3.4.4 the Staffing Plan should be included in Volume V.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan has a defined format in accordance with FAR 52.219‐9. The OCI Mitigation Plan has a defined format in accordance with FAR Part 9.5. But the instruction for the Staffing Plan simply says “Provide a comprehensive plan . . . “ with no referenced standard. Is there a specific format required for the Staffing Plan, beyond addressing those items outlined in Section L‐4.2.6.2?

There is no specific format required for the Staffing Plan.

FA9101-13-R-0100 Final RFP Questions and Answers

Section L‐6.3.1, Estimating System, states “The summary description shall cover separately each major cost element (e.g., Labor, Indirect Costs, Other Direct Costs, Overhead, G&A).” We understand in this context that the term “major cost element” refers to those items in parentheses. In L‐6.3.3, Explanation of

Estimating Methods Used, the term “cost element” is also used. In this context, however, we interpret that cost element is referring to the cost associated with each CWBS element at its lowest estimated level. Is this correct?

You are correct.

Section L‐7.3.5.2 discusses Applicable Documents and provides instructions on submittal of those documents as an annex to the

CPWS. But we are unclear on the specifics of the instructions. Is it the Government’s intent that all Applicable Documents provided in Section 3 of the PWS be printed out and submitted as a separately bound document? Or does the submittal requirement only apply for newly proposed documents or tailored versions of the PWS Section 3 documents (if there are any)? If the former, can you direct us to the source of all of these documents as they do not appear to be present in the competition library.

Clarification of L‐7.3.5.2 will provided as a part of the amended RFP. The amendment will change the language and require a list of Government provided documents and a complete copy of any other documents.

At termination of the prime contract, how will the TOS Contractor, as the sponsor of the AEDC Multiple Employer Defined Benefit

Pension Plan (Plan), recover any difference pursuant to CAS limitations between ERISA‐ required pension plan contributions and Plan contribution costs actually reimbursed via CAS under the contract?

Any accumulated pre‐payment credit liability existing at the end of the TOS contract will be either assumed by the successor contractor or will be "paid‐off" by the Government.

1) Attachment L‐6, Relevancy Matrix, still contains reference to

PWS Area 3.1, Test and Analysis. This PWS element is no longer included in Subfactor 1 under Technical Operations in Section L‐

4.2 of the Final RFP. Should Test and Analysis also be deleted from the Relevancy Matrix?

This column will remain the relevancy matrix (Attachment L‐6). The questions asked within the past performance questionnaire (Attachment L‐2) and the relevancy matrix (Attachment L‐6) concerning the offeror's past performance in conducting test and analysis are relevant to requirements of PWS Section 3.1.

1) Table L‐8.1 lists “Technology/Foreign Tech” man‐hours as

60,441. Is that total inclusive of the 8,127 man‐hours listed in

Table L‐8.2, 1.3.6 Foreign Tech RBA? Are most, if not all, of the man‐hours listed in Table L‐8.1 for Technology/Foreign Tech RBA since this is essentially work for others?

Table L‐8.1 operands (hours) in Attachment L‐8 Workload Guide will be adjusted and a new page provided as an amendment to the RFP. The number provided in

L‐8.1 is understated. AMSC workload is also included in Technology.

Section L‐7.3.4.6.1 of the Draft RFP contained a detailed requirement for a Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) and CWBS Dictionary. The Draft RFP instructions for the CPWS further stated that the CPWS and CWBS should use a common numbering system. The requirement for a CWBS has been removed and Section L‐7.3.5 of the Final RFP (Required

Attachments to Technical Volume) now contains only instructions for the CPWS (which no longer contains any reference to the

CWBS) and Applicable Documents. In Final RFP Section L.4.2.1, Volume Organization, the instructions for Volume II still contain a reference to the CWBS and Dictionary as a required submittal in

Volume II. Since the requirement/instructions for a CWBS have been removed from the Final RFP, we assume that the reference to the CWBS should have also been removed from Section L‐4.2.1.

Is this correct?

You are correct. References to the Contract Work Breakdown Structure and

Dictionary will be removed from the Volume Organization listing in an RFP amendment.

Final RFP Section L‐4.2.7, Subfactor 4: Innovations and Efficiencies, asks that the Offeror describe our innovations and efficiencies and further states “The description shall in include details on implementation method, costs (emphasis added), risks, risk mitigation, time phasing, and workload impact. Section L‐6.1.3 of the Volume IV instructions states that, under no circumstances, should cost data appear anywhere other than Volume IV. Can you please clarify what cost aspects of innovations and efficiencies it is acceptable to address in the Volume II section covered by Section

L‐4.2.7? Specifically, is it acceptable to discuss in Volume II the anticipated cost associated with investments necessary to implement an innovation or efficiency? Is it acceptable to discuss the anticipated cost savings that will derive from implementation of the innovation or efficiency?

The language in L‐2.2.2.1 and L‐6.1.3 Cost/Price have been revised. The cost and savings associated with any proposed innovations and efficiencies should be described in the Technical Volume and the impact of those proposed innovations and efficiencies should be included in the Cost Volume.

Attachment L‐9: AEDC‐L001 Information to Offerors:

L‐5.3.2. PPI Submission:

Offerors shall send PPQs on each identified contract to the points of contact for that contract. If the identified contract was a

Government effort, send to the Program Manager and Contracting

Officer. This questionnaire is contained at Attachment L‐2, Past /

Present Performance Questionnaire. Provide a list of questionnaire recipients to include POCs and phone numbers.

Responses to questionnaires and Past Performance Volume are to be provided directly to the TOS Contracting Officer not later than

30 calendar days after release of the RFP.

Attachment L‐3: Cover Letter:

Paragraph 2:

“Our schedule is extremely tight, and we need your written responses no later than 14 October 2014”

Attachment L‐9 suggests a late September due date, whereas the

Cover Letter indicates the Past Performance Volume is due the same time (10/14/2014) as the other volumes. Please advise.

Section L‐5.3.2 will be revised to reflect that the Past Performance Volume is due

NLT 11:00 AM CDT Monday 29 September 2014.

PWS 3.1.5 indicates that the Government has responsibility for all elements under this PWS section for testing conducted at Arnold AFB, but the lower level PWS element 3.1.5.1 reflects contractor responsibility for TRRs at Arnold AFB.

Which is correct?

PWS 3.1.5.1 provides the requirement for the Contactor support of the 3.1.5 overall requirement. Similarly, 3.1.5.3 is another support function that will have to be provided by the Contractor for the Government to accomplish the overall

3.1.5 requirement at AEDC Arnold AFB.

PWS 3.3.3 states “The Contractor shall deliver specified test cell availability for test and test support operations,” but the specified values are not provided. Will the Government please provide this information?

It is up to the Offeror to propose and describe a methodology and approach for measuring test cell availability. The current process for measuring test cell availability will be added to the Competition Library. The PWS will be revised to include additional details on the key characteristics of test cell availability measurement.

Attachment L‐8 shows approximately 377,000 work hours associated with Capital Investments (PWS 3.8), which is approximately 14% of the total labor hours. We assume the skills mix for this work includes project managers, project engineers, project support (e.g., planners, schedulers, specification writers), design engineers/designers, as well as craft labor to fabricate/install, and staff to support validation/verification efforts. The salary rate for personnel providing project management/engineering/support is significantly different than the rate for craft personnel who are performing fabrication/installation efforts. Offerors cannot provide a realistic estimate of the labor costs associated with capital investments without understanding the distribution of work hours to the required labor categories. Will the Government please provide this breakdown of labor hours to labor categories?

The Government has provided representative Capital Improvements projects in the Competition Library. The Offeror's approach to accomplish capital improvements may be based on the representative project list and reflect the

Offeror's understanding of the skill mix necessary to accomplish Capital

Improvement efforts.

Section L‐2.2.1.1(b) states: “foldouts count as a single page

(i.e., information shall only be on one side of page).” Since an

11x17 foldout contains the equivalent of two pages of information on a single side, in most Government RFPs these foldouts count as two pages. Will the Government please clarify whether a foldout with information on only one side counts as one page or two pages?

IAW Section L‐2.2.1.1 foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, and schematics not pages of text. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume and will count as a single page.

In Section L‐2.3, the RFP states that “ the electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable and searchable by Adobe Acrobat (Version 9.0 or later), Microsoft

(MS) Office Word 2010, MS Office Excel 2010, MS Office

Project 2010, and MS Office PowerPoint 2010, as applicable.”

Are we correct in assuming that all electronic documents should be provided in the Microsoft Office suite of programs, except for documents for which the native file is not available (e.g., RFP documents, Applicable Documents associated with the CPWS)?

IAW Section L‐2.3 they should be submitted in a format readable and searchable by any of the listed software tools. You are free to submit your proposal using whichever of the options you believe best suits each element of your proposal.

The Volume Organization table still lists a Contract WBS which is not referenced elsewhere in the RFP, and previous

Q&A indicated that the requirement would be removed.

Please confirm that a Contract WBS is not part of the proposal submission.

The Volume Organization Table is in error, a Contract WBS is not a required portion of the RFP submission.

Section L‐5.3.2 states “the Past Performance Volume is to be provided to the TOS Contracting Officer not later than 30 calendar days after release of the RFP.” This makes the volume due on a Saturday (Sept. 27). Please clarify whether the Government will receive the Past Performance volume on Sept. 27 or an alternate date (e.g., Monday, Sept. 29).

Section L‐5.3.2 will be revised to reflect that the Past Performance Volume is due

NLT 11:00 AM CDT Monday 29 September 2014.

Section L‐5.3.1 requires submission of not more than three past performance references for each joint venture partner, but Section L‐5.3.4 states that “not more than five (5) recent and relevant contracts for the prime contractor (including joint venture partners) should be submitted.” Are we correct in assuming that each joint venture partner may only submit up to three past performance references?

Section L‐5.3.4 will be amended to read "Provide not more than five recent and relevant contracts for the prime contractor and not more than three for each major subcontractor. If the prime is a joint venture, Offerors shall provide not more than three references per joint venture partner.”

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Cover Letter indicates that the written questionnaire responses are due to the Government no later than 14 October 2014. However, since the Past Performance Volume is an early submission per Section L‐5.3.2, should the questionnaire responses be due on the same date as the rest of the volume (i.e., 30 days after release of the RFP)?

Section L‐5.3.2 will be revised to reflect that the Past Performance Volume is due

NLT 11:00 AM CDT Monday 29 September 2014. Past performance questionnaires are due NLT 14 October 2014.

The volume organization description detailing items in

Section 1 lists the requirement for estimating, purchasing, and accounting systems. Section L.6.3 provides additional requirements for the estimating system (Section L‐6.3.1) and accounting system (Section L‐6.3.2), but not for the purchasing system. Will the Government provide additional details on the requirements for the purchasing system?

The requirement for an approved purchasing system is described in PWS 3.17.1

(FAR 44.3). Reference to the purchasing system will be removed from L‐6.2

Section 1.

Sections L‐6.3.1 and L‐6.3.3.1 appear to contain identical text/requirements. Please clarify.

You are correct. This is an unintentional editing error.

The RFP requires all offerors are required to use the annual pension cost estimate provided in paragraph L‐6.4.8 of

12,900,000 per year. Please clarify whether it is acceptable to apportion the pension cost estimate to the major and minor subcontractors providing labor resources in support of this contract?

L‐6.4.8 will be modified to reflect that the Defined Benefit Pension Plan amount should not be allocated to subcontractors.

The requirements in this section (Applicable Documents) indicate that the Government requires submission of two lists: (1) a list of any offeror, industry, commercial, and tailored Government standards, specifications, processes, and/or practices selected as compliance documents, and (2) a list of Government compliance documents intended to be used during the course of the contract. We believe the first list comprises “non‐standard” documents while the second list comprises standard compliance documents, starting with those listed in PWS sections 3.X as Mandatory and Guidance.

In addition, we believe that any proposed tailoring instructions are to be included with the lists, meaning offeror’s responses can recommend modification to the documents in the second list. The RFP requires that “these documents,” which we interpret to mean the lists, are to be submitted as a separately bound document that will be an annex to the proposed CPWS. We further believe that we are not required to submit copies of the actual documents since these could run 100+ pages each. Please confirm

Yes, you are correct. L‐7.3.5.2 has been revised for clarity.

Section L‐7.1 states that “ the Offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Standard Form 33 and Sections A‐K.” In

RFP Sections L‐7.1.1 through L‐7.1.4, the RFP indicates that this includes Section A, B, G‐I, and K. Section J is not included in this list. Please confirm that offerors do not need to return a copy of Section J and all of the Section J attachments and exhibits in their Volume V, Contract Documentation submittal.

As noted in Section L‐7.3.4, Offerors should submit the following as attachments to the model contract:

GFP and Base Support Requirements (L‐7.3.4.1)

Small Business Subcontracting Plan (L‐7.3.4.2)

OCI Mitigation Plan (L‐7.3.4.3)

Staffing Plan (L‐7.3.4.4)

Associate Contractor Agreements (L‐7.3.4.5)

Please clarify the following:

1. There was a 50,000 man‐hour addition to the FY16 Test

Workload for Aeropropulsion Prep Work, but the WBS 1.1.1

Aeropropulsion Products estimate did not change.

2. The operands for Flight Systems testing is almost double the estimate from the DRFP; however, the man‐hour estimate only increased by 50%.

3. A PWS requirement was added for Property Management

(PWS 3.17.7), but no budget was added for this function.

4. The total estimate for NFAC (WBS 1.5.1 and WBS 1.5.2) increased by about 30,000 hours from the Draft RFP with no change in operands.

1. The Aeropropulsion prep work estimate was left out of the draft RFP RBA operands table, but was included in the final RFP with no impact to the

Government's overall estimate of man‐hours for FY16. See question 113 on

Responses to Industry Comment on the draft Request for Proposal published in

Fed Biz Ops.

2. The relationship between operands and the Government's estimate of man‐ hours is not necessarily linear.

3. See question 112 C on the draft Request for Proposal published in Fed Biz Ops.

The man‐hour estimate for this is included in WBS 4.5.1.

4. See question 113 b of Responses to Industry Comments on the draft Request for Proposal published on Feb Biz Ops. The Government estimate provided in the draft RFP was found to be in error and was corrected in the final RFP.

Please confirm that each offeror/major subcontractor will submit their own TOS Cost Model, with apportioned pension, materials, and travel cost, as necessary. Also, please clarify if these submissions may be delivered as a sealed package. If a major subcontractor is permitted to submit a sealed cost model (Attachment L‐9), then the Prime’s submission will not include fringe details, as noted on the Attachment L‐9 instructions, but will include a total burdened cost for each subcontractor.

Please see L‐6.4.5. If any subcontractor does not want to share detailed information with the prime, separate packages should be submitted to the

Contracting Officer. To the extent that separate sealed packages from subcontractors are included, the prime should include summary level information about the subcontractor.

We acknowledge that if separate subcontractor packages are submitted, the prime will not have fringe details to include in their submission. In that case, modify the formulas as needed in the cost model.

Please confirm that the subcontractor hours and fully‐ burdened subcontractor cost to be submitted on the Cost

Summary by Cost Element worksheet is inclusive of both major and minor subcontractor values.

Yes. In addition, L‐5.3.1, L‐5.3.4, and L‐6.4.7 will be revised to define a major subcontractor as a subcontractor, other than the Offeror itself, that will perform

10 percent or more of contract scope based on labor hours or total cost or maintains a full‐time presence at AEDC or its GSUs.

The Contract Year worksheets detailing hours allocated to each WBS only supply data to the Prime and Interdivisional hours line items of the Cost Summary sheet. Is it your intention that offerors include additional columns or worksheets to account for the distribution of hours by WBS for major and minor subcontractors? Furthermore, should these values be linked to the subcontractor line item on the cost summary sheet?

Yes. Question 30 on Responses to Industry comments on the draft Request for

Proposal addressed this issue as follows: "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."

Values for the subcontractor line should be linked to the subcontractor line item on the cost summary spreadsheet.

In some cases, subcontractors may not be willing to show detailed information to the prime. In that case the subcontractor should submit a completed cost model directly to the Government and should share top level information with the prime sufficient to allow a summary. The cost model submitted by the prime should be a sum total of all costs associated with delivery of the requirements.

How should shift hours be shown on the WBS by year worksheets? Should offerors add additional columns to delineate regular and overtime shift hours?

Offerors may add worksheets to the cost model to ensure all cost data is included. However, there is no requirement to show shift hours differently. If the offeror desires to do so, they may of course modify the spreadsheets or add additional workbooks as needed to provide a clear, unambiguous cost proposal that will allow for the Government's realism assessment.

The PWS element (3.19.2) referenced in this paragraph is incorrect. (The evaluation area is work management, and the referenced PWS deals with janitorial services and refuse collection.) Will the Government provide the correct PWS element?

Para 3.19.2 of the PWS will be revised to the language included in the draft RFP.

Section L‐7.3.5.1 of the Final RFP provides instructions for the

Contract Performance Work Statement (CPWS). It is our understanding that the CPWS is to expand upon the PWS provided in the Final RFP to include our innovations and efficiencies, our performance indicators, and our initiatives to achieve the goals in the Statement of Objectives (SOO). But we would like to request clarification of some specifics of the instructions.

At one point, the instructions state “The CPWS shall include the

Offeror’s proposed technical solution(s) for accomplishing the work at AEDC as described in the Offeror’s Technical Volume.” This instruction would seem to be asking us to integrate approaches and “how” we will accomplish the work scope into the CPWS. But the instructions later state “The proposed CPWS shall not contain informational notes, as the Technical volume provides ample opportunity for discussion and description of the Offeror’s approach.” This instruction would seem to be clearly stating that the CPWS should not contain any “approach” discussions, but that those should be discussed in our Technical volume.

Based on the overall instructions in L‐7.3.5.1, we assume that our

CPWS submittal should include all elements currently in the PWS, with additional detail provided by us to expand upon the “what” we will accomplish through integration of initiatives and performance measures. We further assume that the CPWS should not contain our approach or “how” we will accomplish the work, but that those approach elements should be confined to the

Technical volume.

Are these assumptions correct?

Yes, these assumptions are correct.

Section L‐6.4.9 and Section L‐6.4.10 of the Cost/Price volume instructions states that we must use the estimated burdened cost of material/supplies and estimated cost of travel in our proposal for each year of the contract unless “. . . you can provide clear convincing data that indicates these amounts may be reduced as a result of an initiative you propose.” Without further detail on the components of these provided numbers, this would seem to provide a strong competitive advantage to the incumbent, who is the only Offeror who would have some understanding of the potential for cost reductions within these values. It will be impossible for any other Offeror to provide “clear convincing data” on cost reductions without the detailed makeup of these values.

Would the Government change the language in these clauses to mandate that these numbers must be used by all Offerors and that they cannot be adjusted?

No, these plug numbers are designed to level the playing field between all offerors and avoid any "gaming" by an offeror. While the Government seeks to level the playing field, we do not want to eliminate the potential for cost savings to be proposed. The Government will assess any proposed changes to the plug numbers and adjust the offeror's most probable cost for any proposed change not deemed realistic.

We had an attendee at the FSS Industry Day and we understood from one of the discussions that the FSS scope was being de‐ scoped by four personnel in Receiving and that the responsibility for Receiving for any materials/supplies purchased by the TOS contractor would be returned to the TOS scope. Will the TOS RFP be amended to reflect this change?

Yes, the receiving function is included in Section 3.17.8 of the TOS PWS.

The following CDRLs are shown as due during the transition/phase‐ in period. These reports do not seem appropriate for transition/phase‐in. Was the Government’s intent that they be due during phase in?

• Personnel Strength Report (OT‐2014 30000) is due 7 DAC and 7th day of each month thereafter

• Wage & Salary Management Plan (OT‐2014‐30001) is due 7 DAC and on the 15th of October each year thereafter

• Integrated Program Management Report (DID DI‐MGMT‐81861) is due 37 DAC and 7th day of each month thereafter

No this was not the Government's intent. The date of first submission on each of the CDRLs has been updated to incorporate the transition period (for example, the date of first submission for the Personnel Strength Report has been revised to 97 DAC).

The Government provides guidance on what references are required in the CRM including those from the WBS. All required references are provided in the Government CRM template

(attachment L‐7) with the exception of the WBS. Is it the

Government’s intention for the Offeror to map the WBS to the other references or will the Government provide a revised table with the WBS elements included?

Paragraph L‐2.2.4 of Section L will be amended to remove reference to the WBS from the narrative describing the Cross Reference Matrix.

Please describe the full capabilities of the CMMS system including all modules

Oracle’s Utilities Work and Asset Management (WAM) functions as our

Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS). Oracle WAM is a web‐ enabled application integrated with a server‐based barcode and electronic data interchange to enable the business functions of work management, work and test facility scheduling, preventative maintenance planning and execution, asset hierarchy management, purchasing of services and materials, stock check out and delivery, invoicing, property management, and permit/outage management for

AEDC. The enabling tools are Oracle Work Asset Management (Synergen), AEDC

Barcode Applications, and Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), and an Oracle database. A CMMS Processes spreadsheet will be provided in the Competition

Library.

Please describe the interface between the CMMS and eMatrix There are three eMatrix (Enovia) processes that update Oracle WAM: (1)

MatrixOne process to report lost, damage, or destroyed property provides on‐ line real‐time updates to the Oracle WAM property record, (2) Matrix Doc Link interface sends information about released drawings to Oracle WAM on‐line and real‐time, and (3) Property Custodian Transfer interface provides on‐line, real‐ time updates to Oracle WAM when property is transferred from one custodian to another.

eMatrix (Enovia) is not updated real‐time from any application, including Oracle

WAM.

H123 Associate Contractor Agreements: The clause states: (b) The

TOS Contractor shall take the lead in the negotiation and administration of all ACAs. These agreements shall be finalized within 60 days from the award date of this contract or the various operating and support contracts, whichever is later, and shall be subject to approval by the Contracting Officer. Does the

Government intend these agreements be delivered 60 days from:

• Award or

• Start of phase in or

• Contract start

The Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs) should be finalized within 60 days from the award date of this contract or the award date of each of the other contracts, whichever is later. Also note the information required by L‐7.3.4.5 to be submitted with the model contract.

Reference Attachment L‐6, Relevancy Matrix. The past performance relevancy matrix still has a column for Test and

Analysis even though this has been dropped from the evaluation criteria. Questions:

A) Will the Government please provide an updated matrix?

B) Will the Government provide the matrix as an Excel spreadsheet rather than PDF?

A) This column will remain in the relevancy matrix (attachment L‐6). The questions asked within the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment L‐2) and the relevancy matrix (Attachment L‐6) concerning the offeror's past performance in conducting test and analysis are relevant to requirements of PWS

Section 3.1.

B) The Government will not provide the matrix in Excel format.

Page Size and Format, Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume.

Question 1: Given that: there are no page requirements for

Cost and Contract Volumes; the contract volume will contain sections of the RFP; sections of these volumes may be completed very early in the proposal process, printed early, and removed from the final production critical path; May

Volumes IV and V be number sequentially by tabbed section?

For example 1‐1 to 1‐10 and 2‐1 to 2‐15

No, pages should be numbered sequentially by volume in accordance with L‐

2.2.1.1 (a).

Will the Government provide definitions for certain columns in the relevancy matrix given the Government’s requirement to provide check mark to indicate that the past performance topic is relevant:

a) Organizational conflict of interest – Does a check mark indicate in the OCI column indicate that an OCI plan was submitted and approved by the customer OR that a OCI risk had been identified and mitigated?

b) Key Personnel – Is the check mark intended to indicate whether we had a Key Personnel plan, Key Personnel on the project, or that key personnel from that project will be included for the TOS contract?

c) Staffing Plan – Is the check mark intended to indicate that the project had a staffing plan in place?

d) Cost Performance – Is the check mark intended to indicate that we had positive cost performance?

Will the Government consider changing the requirement of a check box per each column and allow text?

The requirement for check marks as the designators in the relevancy matrix

(Attachment L‐6) remains unchanged. In accordance with Section L‐5.3.3, information explaining how/why each contract is relevant should be input under the Program Details Tab of the PPI tool. Please remember that the check marks only indicate similarity of the Offeror's past performance references to the AEDC

TOS requirements.

Specific clarification for the relevancy matrix headings inquired about follows:

a) A check mark indicates the referenced contract was performed in an environment where OCI issues/risks were present in accordance with definitions of FAR Part 9.5

b) A check mark indicates that the referenced contract was performed with key personnel identified. It is not intended to mean that the referenced key personnel are proposed for the TOS contract.

c) A check mark indicates that the concerns typically addressed by a staffing plan were present (appropriate skills/experience, retaining expertise, hiring/maintaining qualified personnel) and addressed somehow.

d) A check mark indicates that the referenced contract was performed with the most of the following cost concerns: cost forecasting, making realistic estimates, controlling fringe benefit costs, cost reporting, and payment of sub‐contractors.

From “AEDC Base Communications and Information Technology

Services (BCITS) Industry Day No. 1” slide 61, it appears some MIS decisions have been made (possibly COA 2), but that the study is not yet complete.

a) Will AEDC provide a formal decision of the MIS COA selection prior to release of the final TOS RFP?

b) Will any additional details such as functions provided by each system be provided as part of the MIS decision?

The work statement defining the MIS approach for executing the selected Course of Action (COA2) can be found in the TOS Competition Library under the Test

Mission Support Systems Update (TMSSU) section.

http://www.arnold.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD‐140903‐064.pdf

From “AEDC Base Communications and Information Technology

Services (BCITS) Industry Day No. 1” slide 62 – “PMs will be provided with a tool to conduct gov’t projects”.

a) Can you provide information on what tool will be provided?

b) Does “PM” refer to Government project managers or other

AEDC contractor project managers?

a) This tool will be Microsoft Project.

b) PM refers to all project managers, Government and contractor.

From “Responses to Industry’s Comments on the draft Request for

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

Sustainment” response to question No. 16 & No. 41, it’s stated that no corporate systems are to be hosted on any Government network.

a) Can you elaborate how contractor provided systems such as HR, Payroll, Pension, Time & Labor, Benefits, EVM, etc. are intended to be accessed?

b) Would the Government consider allowing contractor‐provided systems or enclaves (software and servers) on AEDC networks if they meet proper Government requirements?

c) By “host”, is this defined as the required systems (HR, EVM, etc.)

cannot be on the AEDC network or that AEDC will not be responsible for maintenance?

a) Offerors should propose how their contractor provided systems such as HR, Payroll, Pension, Time & Labor, Benefits, EVM, etc. will be accessed. Regarding security and access restrictions, if Government data is processed at a corporate site, then all applicable federal policies must be followed.

b) No, contractor‐provided systems or enclaves will not be allowed to be hosted on AEDC network(s). However, contractor‐provided and maintained systems may be deployed at AEDC on contractor‐provided networks.

c) Contractor‐provided systems will not be on the AEDC network and the

Government will not be responsible for maintenance.

It appears it is the intent of AEDC that Engineering, Design, O&M, Test, and other TOS contractor tools proposed (and not currently available) for the AEDC mission be Contractor procured, provisioned and maintained.

a) Is this correct?

If so, would these tools be allowed to be hosted/installed on the

Government system (servers and network) if they meet proper

Government requirements?

No, the Government will provide all engineering, design, O&M, test, and other

TOS contractor tools necessary to perform the test, evaluation and analysis mission. Tools not currently available which are proposed by the Offeror must be approved for use on Government computers and networks.

Section L‐7.1.1 in instructions for the Contract Documentation volume states “Complete pricing information in Section B of the model contract.” Does this instruction apply only to completing

CLIN Items 001 through 0025? Or are we also expected to complete Clauses B028 and B038?

If we are to complete B038, would the Government clarify the value expected to be inserted in Item (c), Earned Award Fee Pool, versus Item (b), Award Fee Pool? The difference in the two items appears to be reflected in Item (e), the breakdown of contract price by fiscal year. Does this imply that you expect us to predict our Award Fee Determination for each year of the contract?

All pricing information requested in Section B should be completed except earned award fee. The earned award fee amounts will entered as fee is earned during the course of the contract.

Table L‐8.1 lists 50 UOH for 16S and Table L‐8.2 lists 260,000 hours for Flight Systems Products, a very large increase from previous years. The last ATA award fee letter states “Your team has been proactive and effective in assisting the Government’s efforts to fully assess the status of the major 16S subsystems.”

In order to accurately prepare our bid, we would request a copy of that assessment and breakout of the WBS 1.1.2 hours that you believe will go to 16S. Additionally, a breakout of test cell UOH for prior years would be helpful in matching up Productive Test Time with workload.

RBA Operands for prior years are available in the competition library:

http://www.arnold.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD‐130507‐038.pdf

The RFP requires that the AEDC TOS contractor secure a DSS

Facility Clearance prior to award of the contract. It is our understanding that we need to be sponsored through the DSS

Facilities Clearance Branch in order for the DSS to process our application. When could we expect to obtain sponsorship for our new bid entity in order to adhere to this requirement?

PWS 3.18.10.1 requires the Contractor to obtain and maintain a current Top

Secret Facility Clearance (FCL). This means the Contractor shall obtain and maintain a facility clearance at the Top Secret classification level prior to performing any classified work, not prior to the award. If the contractor does not possess the prerequisite facility clearance, AEDC will initiate a sponsorship request for a facility security clearance, or FCL, immediately upon contract award. An Interim FCL will be requested at the same time the sponsorship letter is submitted. Once the facility has an interim FCL and a Joint Personnel

Adjudication System (JPAS) account, they can start processing the employees that are required to access classified for a Personnel Security Clearances (PCL). If these processes are going to be required in your company's approach, a detailed explanation of the steps you will take to mitigate the schedule risk of obtaining a final FCL should be included in your proposal.

Will writing only to the requirements of Section L respond adequately to the Section M Measure of Merit criteria?

Yes.

As stated in L‐4.1, "The Technical Volume should be specific and complete.

Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Offeror responses will be evaluated against the Technical subfactors defined in Section M, Evaluation

Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing / satisfying these subfactors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation."

L‐4.2.2, Technical, requires the Offeror to "address your technical solution for meeting or exceeding the Government's minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical subfactor."

L‐4.2.3, Technical Risk, states "Address the Technical Risk associated with those aspects of your proposed technical approach you consider to have the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Classify each risk in accordance with DoD Source

Selection Procedures Table 3, Technical Risk Rating. Provide the rationale for each risk and its rating, including quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance. Describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of other contract requirements (for example: PWS requirements), whether or not h d f d bf l " k