Answers to Offeror Questions_6May.pdf

6 May 2010

Answers to questions previously submitted by potential offerors in response to the first FA9300-10-R-0001 draft RFP posted to FedBizOpps on 28 Aug 2009.

1. Question:

The Government instructs the offerors to address DFARS 252.227-7014 “Rights in Noncommercial Computer Software and Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation”.

However, the clause is not listed in Section I.

Answer:

This clause will be added.

2. Question:

Will the Government exclude the consent letter and client authorization letters from the Past Performance Volume page count?

Answer:

Yes, Excluded from the page limits are - -

• Organizational Roadmap

• Consent Letters

• Client Authorization Letters

A list of all excluded items can be found in section L, paragraph 1.1.6.2.

3. Question:

In the Past Performance Volume, offerors are required to include an explanation of our Organizational Structure Change History; however, there is no allocated page count for this section. Will the Government consider including an Introduction to the Past Performance Volume? We recommend 8 pages to adequately discuss the Organizational Structure Change History and to provide an opportunity for offerors to introduce their proposed team.

Answer:

Organizational Structure Change History is limited to 4 pages total as referenced in Section L- III, table 1.1.6.1. Also, see answer to #2 above.

Cover letter may be used to introduce the team members.

All page limitations are defined in Section L-III, table 1.1.6.1 and paragraph 1.1.6.2.

4. Question:

The DRFP states that the estimated man-years provided in Table 6.4.5 are based on a Labor Productive Year (LPY) of 1,728 hours. This is lower than typically experienced on Government contracts where an LPY is usually in the mid 1,800s. The commonly used LPY of 1,850 allows for 80 hours of holiday and 150 hours for absences, such as vacation and sick leave. If the Government specifies a lower LPY, it may create some discrepancies among offerors. For example, some offerors may use the 1,728 LPY provided in the RFP without accounting for the corresponding absence in their fringe benefits rates. By lowering the labor hours per FTE, and subsequently for the entire workforce, offerors could artificially lower their proposed price. To eliminate the potential uncertainties, will the Government consider increasing the Labor Productive Year to 1,850? An alternative approach would be to require offerors to substantiate their proposed LPY, even if they do not propose to deviate from the LPY of 1,728. This will provide the Government with visibility of the elements included in the LPY for the purpose of making appropriate cost adjustments.

Answer:

The government estimated productive man-year is 1860 hours per year.

5. Question:

It is not clear why this particular element of work is being treated as Firm Fixed Price. It would appear to that this effort is part of the overall scope of work for the ROSS effort and that this limits the flexibility of the contractor to move personnel across the contract as required to meet overall contract requirements. We recommend that this PWS 1.4.5.4 effort be included in the cost-reimbursable portion of the contract.

Answer:

The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) portions of the contract are severable in nature, and thus require separate CLINs. Please see policy memo regarding severable vs. non-severable tasks, “Considering Severability When Forming Contracts,” SAF/AQC 15 Jun 09.

Also, see answer to #6 below.

6. Question:

Please clarify whether the ODC costs provided for this CLIN include the ODC requirements for the Site Operations Control Center or the Sustainment Restoration Modernization activities which are Firm Fixed Price CLINs. We note that the CLINS associated with SOCC and SRM refer to providing personnel only.

Answer:

The FFP CLINS should be proposed with all costs associated with the required activity. The affected FFP CLINs have been partially revised: The contractor shall provide Research Operations Support Services II (ROSS II) Site Operations Control Center (SOCC) activities in accordance with Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement paragraph 1.4.5.4. The SRM CLINs will be priced and exercised at such time as the government identifies an SRM need.

7. Question:

The scope of work as defined in PWS 1.4.3.4 is insufficient to allow the contractor to develop a firm fixed price for this effort. We realize that the SRM effort is difficult to fully define at this time and may well change over the course of the contract as a result of unforeseen events. In addition to the labor component, it is unclear how to estimate the Other Direct Costs associated with the SRM effort – we note that an ODC value is specified for the remainder of the contract work in recognition that these cost elements are beyond the offerors’ control. With these challenges in mind, we recommend that this SRM effort be included in the cost-reimbursable portion of the contract.

Answer:

The SRM CLINs will be priced and exercised at such time as the government identifies an SRM need.

Please see policy memo regarding severable vs. non-severable tasks, “Considering Severability When Forming Contracts,” SAF/AQC 15 Jun 09.

8. Question:

Would the Government please confirm that the Fixed Price CLINs 0013, 0014, 0017, 0018, 0019, 0020, and 0021 should not be included in clause B028?

Answer:

Clause B028 is currently applicable to CLINs 0001, 0005, 0006, 0007 CLINs 0013, 0014, 0017, 0018, 0019, 0020, and 0021 are OPTION CLINs and therefore, should not be included in this clause until/ or unless those CLINs are exercised.

9. Question:

The Government requires offerors to cap the labor overhead rate for the lifetime of the contract.

Offerors will have substantially different approaches to defining what is included in the labor overhead. Please define what contract functions are to be included in the labor overhead rate and what the basis is for calculating the percentage (for example, total labor cost, or total contract cost)?

Answer:

Clause B059 is deleted.

10. Question:

Several of the PWS paragraph references (e.g., 1.6.3) appear to be incorrect. Would the Government please review and revise as necessary?

Answer:

The PWS paragraph references have been reviewed and revised

11. Question:

IAW the PWS, would the Government please define how “Wrap Rate” is to be calculated for the purposes of this metric?

Answer:

Wrap Rate is no longer an SS item, however it is expected to be included as a cost control measure in the ROSS II award fee plan. Please calculate the Labor Wrap Rate in compliance with the established/disclosed practices of the firm/entity. This proposal should not be considered a request or instructions to change any firm’s/entity’s disclosed/established practices, policies or procedures. However, the proposal should be in compliance with all Company/Corporation/Division/ profit center practices, policies or procedures. Additionally, the proposal should be in compliance with the applicable government regulations and laws.

Due to the different accounting systems in use by government contractor’s we cannot establish (define) one Labor “Wrap Rate” calculation. The development of a firm’s/entity’s proposed Labor Wrap Rate is dependent upon how it records and/or allocates intermediate supervisors and or management (operations) costs and other established and reviewed factors.

Additionally, government contractors often have different intermediated allocations of costs; and when they have the same name/title there is no expectation that these costs will be applied to the exact same base. The same is applicable to the indirect rate(s) (O/H, Occupancy, G&A, COM, etc.)) application(s). Furthermore, the factors, intermediate allocations, and indirect rates should be the negotiated rates when available/applicable.

However, please do not include Other Direct Costs (ODC) including travel in the calculation of the Labor Wrap Rate, these ODCs; when reasonable, allowable, allocable and supportable, are to be invoiced/billed under CLINs 0008, and 0015. Additionally, since this acquisition is expected to include an Award Fee, profit would not be applicable in the Labor Wrap Rate.

12. Question:

Per L021, pg L-4 of the DRFP, the Government has not included any SB targets in the DRFP.

Early disclosure of the Government’s requirements in this area is critical to our ability to identify and form a team that is responsive to AFRL’s technical requirements and your socio-economic goals. When does the Government intend to provide these targets?

Answer:

Paragraph 7.3.4.1 and FAR clause 52.219-24 state that the contractor provides the SB targets.

For DoD recommended goals see:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/statistics/goals.htm

13. Question:

While we appreciate the Government’s interest in a streamlined and succinct proposal, we believe that limiting the Executive Summary to 2 pages provides insufficient space to address the areas identified in Section L-III, Section 3.1. We recommend that the Government increase the Executive Summary to a maximum of 5 pages.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/statistics/goals.htm

The government believes that 2 pages of executive summary are sufficient.

14. Question:

Section 2.2.1 of the DRFP indicates that resumes are not page count restricted. To ensure that only relevant work history/resume information is provided, would the Government consider limiting each resume to a maximum of three (3) pages?

Answer:

Due to the change in acquisition strategy, resumes are no longer required.

15. Question:

The DRFP requires that pages be double spaced. This spacing requirement significantly reduces the amount of information that offerors can include on a page, which will make it difficult to adequately address all RFP requirements. Would the Government consider allowing offerors to use single spacing in both narrative text and graphics.?

Answer:

In order to maintain the readability of the documents the requirement for double spacing remains.

16. Question:

Section 2.3 of the DRFP states that 11 x 17 foldouts count as two (2) pages. For easier review of multiple 11 x 17 cost forms, will the Government consider allowing Government-provided Cost forms to only count as one page? This will allow the Cost forms to be page numbered directly in the Excel file. Excel does not allow double page numbering (e.g., page 1/2); therefore, if 11 x 17s count as two pages, the electronic version cannot include page numbers.

Answer:

There is no longer a page restriction on the cost proposal, only a goal. For the cost proposal, 11 x 17 pages will be allowed to count as a single page. However, 11 x 17 pages will still count as 2 pages for the remaining sections.

17. Question:

Section 4.2.2 of the DRFP requires a Cross Reference Matrix to be included in the Mission Capability volume. Please advise if the Cross Reference Matrix is considered a glossary, and therefore does not count against the 85 page limit. Suggest adding the following language to address Sect 4.2.2(4), Cross Reference Matrix: provide cross reference between those costs presented in scenarios and those presented in the Cost Volume.

Since there is no longer a Mission Capability volume, a matrix is no longer required.

18. Question:

It appears from the instructions that the Government wishes the offerors to specifically address Mission Capability Risk and has identified specific elements that must be addressed. However, the Volume Organization described in 4.2.2 only identifies a requirement for a Risk Matrix.

Please clarify if the requirements of Section 4.2.1.1 should be addressed in this Risk Matrix section of our proposal.

Since there is no longer a Mission Capability volume, a matrix is no longer required.

19. Question:

Although we understand that the estimated man-years are informational only, it is not clear how the offeror will be able to provide detailed rationale for a deviation from these numbers based on the information provided by the Government. Specifically, to address the work load requirements that will allow an offeror to develop a specific staffing plan requires that the Government provide a detailed list of work load indicators for each PWS. Lacking this, we suggest that the Government make these estimated man-years a requirement rather than optional to prevent widely disparate offeror estimates that are not based on a consistent work load definition

Answer:

Due to the change in strategy to a PPT without technical proposals, in order to provide a fair and level playing field for all offerors, the government is providing the estimated Full Time Equivalent (FTE) requirements and labor categories for the ROSS II program. The ONLY allowable deviations from the Government estimated man-years and provided skill mix are those necessary for compliance with the offeror’s disclosure statement/estimating system for charging direct and indirect labor. Offerors who deviate from the prescribed estimated man-years and provided skill mix must substantiate those deviations with sufficient detail to enable the evaluation team and DCAA auditors to corroborate the deviations with the offeror’s disclosure statement/estimating system.

20. Question:

Concerning L-III, page L-12, paragraph 4.2.6.1. This element of the DRFP directs the offeror to address our “.. company’s capability to provide research and development for the AFRL mission.” It would appear from the PWS that the ROSS II contractor provides support (i.e., facilities operation, maintenance, test and evaluation) to research and development but does not conduct research and development tasks. Would the government please clarify?

There is no longer a technical volume, therefore this submittal is not required.

21. Question:

Please clarify if:

1) The Estimating Methodology (6.3.1 and 6.3.4) is required only for the Scenarios; and For the contract cost, there is no discussion of Estimating Methodologies required unless the offeror deviates from the Government estimate.

Answer:

There is no longer a technical volume, therefore, there will no longer be scenarios. The estimating methodology information is needed so that the evaluators understand the offeror’s Cost Volume information submitted in the proposal.

22. Question:

It is unclear what information the Government requires. Several issues have been identified:

1) It will be only be an educated guess to define projections of expenditures, commitments, and termination expenses in the proposal. While labor is relatively straightforward, ODC expenses – which incur the highest risk for commitment and termination – are recognized by the Government as outside of the offeror’s control.

2) How are the different “type of funds” defined?

3) How does the offeror know what the Government funding constraints are for any year in the contract?

Would the Government please clarify this requirement?

Answer:

1) ODCs are beyond the offerors’ control and, without further definition of requirements by the Government, a realistic cost estimate by offerors cannot be developed. Therefore, the Government will provide the estimated ODCs in Section B of the solicitation.

2) The requirement to identify different “type of funds” has been deleted from the DRFP.

3) The requirement that the funding schedules must be consistent with any imposed

Government budgetary constraints has been deleted from the DRFP.

23. Question:

The Government requests that, for the Scenarios, the offerors present a person-loading schedule by the third level WBS. Is the intent for the offeror to develop a WBS structure for each scenario consistent with the work to be performed or should the offeror use the WBS that makes up the PWS?

The Mission Capability volume and scenarios have been deleted in their entirety.

24. Question:

Concerning Section L-III, page L-20, Table 6.4.3. This Table includes the requirement for an estimated ODC. The Government has indicated in L-III, Section 6.2.1.5.6 that ODCs are beyond the offerors control. We suggest that the Government include an ODC value for each of the scenarios to avoid having widely divergent values provided by offerors.

Answer:

The Mission Capability volume and scenarios have been deleted in their entirety.

25. Question:

In Appendix D of the PWS the Government has indicated an Estimated Contract Man-Year Equivalent of 114 for each contract year. In this Table, which is identified as the basis for contract cost, the number is 96 for each year.

1) Could the Government please explain the difference in the numbers?

2) Could the Government clarify if these numbers include contract management (overhead) as well as direct contract functions.

Answer:

106 FTEs is the correct number. The 106 FTEs exclude management, i.e. they are based on the on-site direct labor to perform the ROSS.

26. Question:

Section L-III, page 16, paragraph 6.2.1.5.2. This section states that the Government will use escalation factors produced by DCAA using the “current year percentage change rate (CHYA%).” Rationale must be provided for using escalation other than this rate. Would the Government explain where contractors can obtain this escalation rate or could the government provide this rate with the RFP and explain how it is to be used in the cost evaluation?

Answer:

For GFY11 through GFY15, the Government has provided escalation factors, based on Global Insight CY2010 for compensation of professional, scientific, and technical workers, they are FY 11, 2.32%; FY12, 2.33%; FY13, 3.07%, FY14, 3.01%, and FY15 2.95%.

27. Question:

Is an AFRL Advanced Technology Demonstration (AD) an internal government undertaking to bring a test article to AFRL, or does that concept include Industry bringing a test article to an

AFRL site? From a process perspective, can you identify or discuss a general scheduling timeline, from the time a tester contacts AFRL until the test article arrives on site?

At AFRL Edwards, we do not perform Advanced Technology Demonstrations. The majority of our test operations include testing articles provided by industry. However, any internal government undertakings are done on the research level and are not advanced tech demos.

28. Question:

During project development, does the requirement development portion require input from the operations or engineering support contractors to AFRL, or does AFRL determine the support requirements and pass them on to the affected contractors? From a process perspective, can you identify or discuss a general scheduling timeline for project development?

Answer:

During project development, we require input from the support contractor to develop testing requirements.

29. Question:

How is the ADT IPT determined? Is the “test article owner” OEM etc. a member, or is this an AFRL populated IPT? Does the Applied Technology Council (ATC) determine IPT membership? Who populates the ATC review – the IPT plus others, or is it an independent review?

Answer:

We do not have ATD IPTs.

30. Question:

Does AFRL test site undertake CRADA’s as part of its “technology push” undertakings?

Answer:

We use CRADAs to partner with educational institutions and government/industry partners.

31. Question:

Does AFRL-RZS use a standard automated tool to track schedule activity? For example, do you use the UDS system?

No, we do not use a standard automated tool to track schedule activity. However, many of our complex technology demonstrations are tracked using Microsoft Project.

32. Question:

Does AFRL/RZS have a standard “Tester’s Manual” that test article owners are given, that explains the AFRL test operations, test scheduling, contracting, and funding, etc. process. Is this manual available to government entities or OEMs to review prior to project initialization at

AFRL/RZS?

Answer:

No, we do not.

33. Question:

What is the process that a tester uses to engage the AFRL/technical capability? To what extent is that technical capability, i.e. can a tester use all their own labor for all aspects of the pre-test, test operations, and post-test operations, or is the usage scalable with AFRL Tecjnical help involvement.

Answer:

Customers typically access AFRL-RZS technical capabilities through CRADAs or Commercial Test Agreements (CTA). The extent of AFRL involvement is negotiated for each agreement.

34. Question:

Is test scheduling done incrementally as funding is available, or is a test scheduled and being worked while funding is being sought by the government agency or industry doing the actual test?

Answer:

Tests are scheduled based upon anticipated budgets and known customer requirements up to 10 years in advance.