ARES III - QandA no.3.pdf

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers

1. Reference: Draft RFP, Section F, and Table 6.4.5 – Contract Cost Basis/Job Title/ Education/

Experience/Man-Years. The table reflects a seven year effort to cost when Section F, F002 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE (FEB 1997) reflects a five year contract (two year base, one two-year option and one, one-year option).

Feedback / Question: Is this a five year or seven year effort?

Response: It will be a five-year effort

2. Reference: Draft RFP Section L-III Information to Offerors (ITO), Para 2.2.4 Cross

Referencing, page 9 (of 45)

Second paragraph, first sentence states that “cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.” However, second sentence says “cross-referencing within a proposal volume is NOT permitted.”

Feedback / Question: Please clarify cross-referencing.

Response: Cross-referencing is permitted.

3. Reference: Draft RFP Section L-III Information to Offerors (ITO), Table 2.2 Proposal

Organization, page 7 (of 45)

Volume I Executive Summary page limit is cited as two pages. However this must include a “narrative summary of the entire proposal,” and “a master table of contents for the entire proposal.”

Feedback / Question: The (2) page limit significantly constrains the ability to construct a meaningful narrative, given that the Table of Contents is likely to take up most (if not all) of the page space.

Consider expanding the limit or not counting the Table of Contents as part of the page count.

Response: The table of contents is not counted and the two pages for the executive summary are just about your company, not a summary of your proposal. The executive summary is not evaluated.

4. Reference: Draft RFP Section L-III Information to Offerors (ITO), Para 4.2.3 Subfactor One, Technical Services, 4.2.3.1 Ground Rules, Sub para 4.2.3.1.1, page 11 (of 45)

Sub para 4.2.3.11 states “The response to the scenarios is not subject to discussions (FAR 15.306(d)), i.e. No Proposal Inadequacy or Deficiency ENs will be issued by the Government.”

Feedback / Question: Given the state of the DRFP, i.e. no draft scenarios identified [4.2.3.2 Scenarios, p. 12 (of 45)], this appears to put both the evaluator (Government) and the Offeror at a

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers disadvantage. Specifically the current DRFP does not communicate (describe) the scenarios thus failing to give the offeror the opportunity to comment or request clarification. Recommend that the Government provide the draft scenarios in subsequent publication of a DRFP or final RFP with the ability of the offeror to come back with questions or comments to the scenarios. Doing so will increase the fidelity of understanding, and avoid misunderstanding, particularly if the offeror proposal responses will not be subject to discussion once submitted.

Response: The prospective offerors are always allowed the ability to ask questions concerning the RFP, including the scenarios.

5. Reference: Draft RFP Section L-III Information to Offerors (ITO), and Section 5.0 Volume III, Past Performance, para 5.2 Early Proposal Information, page 15 (of 45)

Feedback / Question: Para 5.2 opening paragraph appears to be instructions or boilerplate for the Government procurement team, rather than information to potential offerors. Recommend this be deleted and specific instructions clarified.

Response: You are correct. This part will be deleted in the final RFP.

6. Reference: Draft RFP Section L-III Information to Offerors (ITO), and Section 7.0 Volume V, Contract Documentation, para 7.1 Model Contract

Feedback / Question: Para 7.1 states, “…The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model contract, and Sections A through K…” However, the following DRFP subparagraphs cite Sections A-B, F-I, & K instructions, but there is no mention of Sections C-E or J. Do these sections not apply? If so, please state.

Response: All sections A-J apply. However, there no blocks to be completed in sections C-E and G, H and J.

7. Reference: Draft RFP, Section H, under “Other Contract Clauses in Full Text”, for AFFTC-H001 FAR 52.216-10 Incentive Fee (JAN 2008)(Tailored)(MAY 2011) Subsection (c):

Feedback / Question: There appears to be conflicting direction regarding Fee in the Draft RFP. The fee structure description states that the fixed fee will be 3% on this contract along with an incentive fee of up to 4%. However, Section L-III, Subsection 6.3 (c) (Fixed Fee) states “The proposal must clearly identify the fee of Not To Exceed (NTE) 8% which is the fee rate on the fully burdened PRIME LABOR ONLY (inclusive of applicable overhead costs associated with the total labor)”. Please clarify which of these approaches offerors should use when proposing fee?

Response: The fixed fee is 3%. The performance incentive is up to 4%. Section L-III para. 6.3(c) will be corrected in the Final RFP.

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers

8. Reference: Section H, under “Other Contract Clauses in Full Text”, AFFTC-H001 FAR 52.216- 10 Incentive Fee (JAN 2008)(Tailored)(MAY 2011) Subsection (c):

Feedback / Question: At the end of the text discussing “PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE”, there is a table depicting both “Percent of incentive pool paid at end of evaluation period” and “Percent of incentive pool deferred to end of contract”. This table is very confusing given the preceding text of this subsection. For example, will the incentive fee portion being deferred, be deferred to the end of the contract (as indicated by the text in the row name) or just shifted to the right by one period as indicated in the table? What will the criteria be for earning the “0.5%” incentive fee that was shifted out beyond the last contract period (Period-4) as depicted in this table? Is it just the payment of the percentages depicted in the last row (“Percent of incentive pool deferred to end of contract”) that will be deferred and thus still part of the available incentive fee to be earned during each period? Or is the available incentive fee being shifted? The use of the word “paid” in the first row of the table (“Percent of incentive pool paid at end of evaluation period”) led me to ask the previous two questions.

Response: The incentive fee portion being deferred will be deferred to the end of the contract. For example, the incentive fee portion for the four six-month evaluation periods will be paid at the end of the base period. The incentive fee portions for each option period will be deferred to the end of that option period. At the end of each performance period, the deferred amount will be automatically available to be invoiced without any other requirements.

9. Reference: L-III Page 5 of 45; Section 1.1 Budget/Funding Information Feedback / Question: Will this data be provided in the final RFP?

Response: This section will be deleted from the Final RFP

10. Reference: L-III Page 5 of 45; Section 2.0 General Instructions, (a) Feedback / Question: This section references a Statement of Objective (SOO), a Performance Work Statement (PWS), and a System Specification; however, only a Statement of Work (SOW) was provided in the DRFP. Will the SOO, PWS, and Systems Specification references be eliminated from the final

RFP?

Response: SOO and PWS, and Systems Specifications references will be deleted.

11. Reference: L-III Page 6 of 45; 2.1.5 Oral Presentations Feedback / Question: This section states that Volumes I-IV are to be presented in the oral presentation.

Please confirm that the Cost/Price Volume (Volume IV) is to be included in the oral presentation.

Response: Volume III, Factor 1, subfactors 2, 3 and 4 will be the only information presented in the oral presentation. No other volumes will be presented.

12. Reference: L-III Page 6 of 45; 2.1.5 Oral Presentations Feedback / Question: Since 65 pages of written proposal pages, plus the Past Performance information, will contain much more data than can be covered in a two-hour presentation, can the

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers

Government please elaborate on the statement that the oral presentation will "augment" the written proposal. Are there specific aspects of proposal Volumes II and III that the Government would like the offerors to focus upon?

Response: Volume III, Factor 1, subfactors 2, 3 and 4 will be the only information presented in the oral presentation. No other volumes will be presented. The presentation will be up to one hour and 15 minutes; consisting of 15 minutes of introduction, up to 45 minutes of the technical presentation and 15 minutes of MIS demonstration. Please see final RFP for specific aspects.

13. Reference: L-III Page 7 of 45; 2.1.5 Oral Presentations Feedback / Question: Is anything missing from the first sentence on the top of page 7? (The indentation and lack of capitalization prompts this question.)

Response: See the Final RFP for changes.

14. Reference: L-III Page 7 of 45; 2.1.5 Oral Presentations Feedback / Question: Would the Government consider allowing the offerors to submit their presentation charts after submission of the written proposal? This will allow the offerors to better focus on the content and the quality of the presentation after finalizing their written proposal volumes and costing/pricing data.

Response: Presentation charts must be submitted with the written proposal.

15. Reference L-III; page 7 of 45; 2.1.6 Communications Feedback / Question: This section indicates that the Government may send encrypted source selection information communications. What encryption techniques or standards will be used?

Response: The Government plans to password protect electronic communications once proposals are received. The original proposals must be hand-delivered or mailed IAW FAR 52.215-1.

16. Reference L-III Page 7 of 45; 2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

Feedback / Question: Please confirm that the numbers in the "Copies" column of Table 2.2 - Proposal Organization, refers to the number of originals/number of copies. This column is currently not labeled.

Response: We will add the words ‘Original / Copies’ so that offerors know what they need to provide of each.

17. Reference L-III; Page 7 of 45; 2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits Feedback / Question: In Table 2.2, the page limit of Vol III Relevant Past Performance is defined as 3 pages per contract. Please confirm that these three pages represent the responses to L-III 5.3.1, Specific Content, for each contract submitted. Also, please confirm that the other contract-specific information required by L-III Section 5.1 (the Past Performance Information described in L-III Attachment 2; the Consent Letters described in L-III Attachment 4; and the Client Authorization Letters described in Attachment 5) can be provided as Attachments to the offeror's proposal, in accordance with the "etc."

row in Table 2.2, and that these Attachments are not subject to the page limits. Currently, the "etc." row

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers in Table 2.2 seems to apply to a set of Attachments to the entire proposal; however, will the Government allow for a set of attachments specific to Vol III, Past Performance? This will allow this attached information to be bound in the same binder with the rest of Vol III, rather than as a separate attachment volume.

Response: This will be clarified in Final RFP

18. Reference L-III; Page 7 of 45; 2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

Feedback / Question: In Table 2.2, the page limit of Vol III Relevant Past Performance is defined as 3 pages per contract. However, a separate narrative is also required in the Past Performance volume in response to the requirements of Section 5.3.2, Organizational Change History. We suggest that two pages be allocated to Vol III to provide page space for the Organizational Change History response.

Response: The page limit for Vol. III Past Performance will be changed to 10 pages per contract.

19. Reference L-III Page 7 of 45; 2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

Feedback / Question: The Table 2.2 "Page Limit" column indicates that page limits will be inserted for Vol IV and Vol V. We suggest that these volumes not be page limited, since they are driven by the required data and exhibits provided by the Government.

Response: There will be no page limits for Vol IV and V, however there will be a page goal for Vol IV. Pages limits will be clarified in Final RFP.

20. Reference L-III Page 7-8 of 45; 2.2.1 Page Limitations

Feedback / Question: The last sentence of this paragraph lists items that are excluded from the page limitations. We suggest that the following items, which are required by L-III, 4.2.2, [Mission Capability] Volume Organization, also be excluded from page limitations: List[s] of Table and Drawings and volume Cross-Reference Matrices.

Response: This will be taken into consideration for the Final RFP.

21. Reference L-III Page 8 of 45, 2.2.1.1 Page Size and Format (a)

Feedback / Question: This section states that pages "shall be double spaced, typed with 1.5 line spacing." These requirements appear to be in conflict. Please clarify.

Response: We require double spaced. Language will be clarified in the Final RFP.

22. Reference L-III Page 8 of 45, 2.2.1.1 Page Size and Format

Feedback / Question: Please confirm that the Cross Reference Matrix (described in Attachment 1) can be prepared with 10-point font. The smaller font should make the matrix format easier to read.

Response: Cross-Reference Matrix can be no smaller than Ariel 10-point.

23. Reference L-III Page 8 of 45, 2.2.3 Classified Information

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers

Feedback / Question: Does the Government anticipate the need for any classified responses? For example, in the scenarios?

Response: No, the Government does not anticipate that there will be any classified responses.

24. Reference L-III Page 9 of 45, 2.2.4 Cross-Referencing

Feedback / Question: The two sentences of the second paragraph contradict each other (Cross referencing is/is not permitted). Please clarify.

Response: Cross-referencing is permitted

25. Reference L-III Page 9 of 45, 2.2.4 Cross-Referencing Feedback / Question: The third and fourth paragraphs reference a SOO and a PWS. These documents are currently not a part of the DRFP package. Will these references be deleted? In the third paragraph, the reference to the cross reference matrix is currently Attachment 1 of the DRFP package.

Response: References to SOO and PWS will be deleted.

26. Reference L-III Page 9 of 45, 2.2.4 Cross-Referencing Feedback / Question: In the fourth paragraph, it is not clear what the phrase "in that section" refers to.

Should/can this phrase be deleted for clarity?

Response: This will be clarified in the Final RFP.

27. Reference L-III Page 9 of 45, 2.2.4 Cross-Referencing

Feedback / Question: Please confirm that the Government is asking for (1) volume-specific cross-reference matrices in the front of each proposal volume and (2) a separate proposal-wide Master Cross Reference Matrix, to be provided as a Proposal Attachment.

Response: Government is requiring a separate proposal-wide Master Cross Reference Matrix, to be provided as a Proposal Attachment. A volume-specific cross-reference matrices in the front of each proposal volume is allowed, but not required

28. Reference L-III; page 9 of 45; 2.2.7 Binding and Labeling Feedback / Question: Are transmittal "cover letters" (different from the "Cover Sheet" described in this section) allowed for each volume? If so, would they outside of the page limits?

Response: Cover sheets and cover letters will not be counted in the page limit. The Cover Sheet is on the outside of the 3-ring binder.

29. Reference L-III; page 10 of 45, 4.1 [Volume II] General Feedback / Question: This paragraph states, "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 to tell us so in your proposal." With these sentences in mind, please confirm that the Government has not asked the offerors to provide, in the Mission Capability volume, general technical approaches to each

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers detailed SOW technical requirement, especially the technical requirements of SOW section 3.3. We understand that specific technical requirements of the scenarios are to be addressed in our scenario responses; however, we just wanted to verify that separate technical SOW requirement responses are not required.

Response: The contractors need to address the areas as described in the L-III para 4.0, Mission Capability Volume II. Separate technical responses for each SOW requirement are not required.

30. Reference L-III; page 10 of 45; 4.2 Format and Specific Content

Feedback / Question: Section 4.2.1 Mission Capability and its subordinate section, 4.2.1.1 Mission Capability Risk, both address the topic of risk and could imply that the offerors are to address risks within each Mission Capability subfactor response. However, Section 4.2.7 Proposal Risk (on page 14 of 45) seems to imply that the proposal is to include a single section, following Subfactor 4, that addresses all proposal risks. Can the Government clarify where in the proposal risks are to be addressed:

within each subfactor or in a separate Risk section. Page limits and potentially overlapping responses would seem to indicate that the subject of risk should be focused in one place and not be addressed in multiple places.

Response: This will be clarified in Final RFP.

31. Reference L-III; page 11 of 45; 4.2.1.1 Mission Capability Risk Feedback / Question: The first sentence references "poor performance" and also "the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance." Are these different in the Government's mind or are they redundant? If so, the later could be eliminated to simplify the proposal requirements.

Response: They are different. Unsuccessful contract performance pertains to the overall performance of the contractor, whereas poor performance could be isolated to a specific aspect of performance during the contract.

32. Reference L-III; page 11 of 45; 4.2.2 Volume Organization

Feedback / Question: (8) Subfactor 4; Institutions (plural) should probably be changed to be consistent with 4.2.6 "Institution" (singular) since it changes the part of speech.

Response: The word institution(s) will be deleted from this title.

33. Reference L-III; page 11-12 of 45; 4.2.3.1.3 [Scenario Ground Rules]

Feedback / Question: This paragraph states that the offeror's "response to the scenario questions should be consistent with your proposal for Mission Capability Subfactors 1-4 ..." Since the scenarios are already Subfactor 1, shouldn't the reference in this sentence be to "Mission Capability Subfactors 2- 4?"

Response: Yes. This will be clarified in Final RFP.

34. Reference L-III; page 11 of 45; 4.2.3.1.3 (Ground Rules) and page 27 of 45; 7.3.4.6.1 CWBS and

CWBS Dictionary

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers

Feedback / Question: There are two references in the DRFP to providing WBS's; one reference (L-III 4.2.3.1.3) is associated with the scenarios and would seem to indicate that offerors are required to develop and provide a third-level WBS for each scenario. The other reference is to providing a CWBS in response to L-III 7.3.4.6.1 which requires that a (contract-wide?) CWBS be developed and provided in the Model Contract (Vol V) in response to the Government's PWBS (which was not provided with the DRFP). Please clarify which of these two WBSs are the WBS that is intended to be referenced in the Cross Reference Matrix. Or, perhaps, the WBS column in the Cross Reference Matrix may not be needed for this procurement?

Response: The Government does not intend to provide a preliminary WBS. The WBS intended to be referenced in the Cross Reference Matrix is the contract WBSs. The scenario WBSs are fictitious and should only be used for the scenarios.

35. Reference L-III; page 12 of 45; 4.2.3.1.3 [Scenario Ground Rules]

Feedback / Question: The list of items that must, "at a minimum," be addressed, include some terms that are not found elsewhere in the DRFP, for example, "Organization Plan," "Staffing Plan," "Management Plan," and "Task Plan." Are these additional response requirements in addition to the items and topics already included within Subfactors 2, 3, and 4? Due to the page limits, we would like to be clear on identifying the response requirements.

Response: This will be clarified in Final RFP.

36. Reference L-III; page 12 of 45; 4.2.3.1.3 [Scenario Ground Rules]

Feedback / Question: The list of items that must, at a minimum, be addressed, includes a requirement for a "Third Level WBS/Schedule/Skill Mix ..." We are not clear on the requirement for a WBS. L-III Section 7.3.4.6.1 of the Contract Volume instructions requires a CWBS be provided as a proposal attachment. This CWBS is to be based on a PWBS that the Government is to provide, but was not included in the DRFP. Does the WBS requirement in Section 4.2.3.1.3 refer to separate WBSs (or CWBS?) for each scenario, to be integrated with a scenario schedule and a scenario skill mix? Please clarify.

Response: The Government does not intend to provide a preliminary WBS. The WBS intended to be referenced in the Cross Reference Matrix is the contract WBSs. The scenario WBSs are fictitious and should only be used for the scenarios. All of this will be clarified in Final RFP.

37. Reference L-III; page 12 of 45; 4.2.3.1.3 [Scenario Ground Rules]

Feedback / Question: The indented list of items that must, at a minimum, be addressed, includes "Intellectual Property Rights" on the last line of the list; however, this topic was already addressed in the paragraph immediately above, in more detail ("... and show a clear understanding and methodology to assigning intellectual property rights ..."). We are just trying to make sure that a duplicate response is not required.

Response: Duplicate responses are not required.

38. Reference L-III; page 12 of 45; 4.2.4.1 [Subfactor 2: Program Management]

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers

Feedback / Question: The first sentence of this paragraph references SOW paragraph 7.2 in regard to the dedicated program manager; however, paragraph 7.2 deals with Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements, so the 7.2 reference appears to be incorrect. Please clarify.

Response: Reference should be to SOW 3.2.1.

39. Reference L-III; page 12 of 45; 4.2.4.2 [Subfactor 2: Program Management]

Feedback / Question: The last sentence of this paragraph refers to transitioning resources by the contract start date. This topic, however, overlaps with the overall transition proposal preparation instructions of Section 4.2.4.9. Due to the proposal page limitations, would the Government consider moving this topic from 4.2.4.2 into 4.2.4.9 to conserve pages? (This same overlap issue is also reflected in the last sentence of the first paragraph of Subfactor 2, in Section M.)

Response: Paragraph 4.2.4.2 is just asking for the proposed organizational chart showing lines of authority and chains of command including a descriptive narrative of the proposed organization.

This paragraph does not refer to transition. Para 4.2.4.9 is asking for a detailed transition plan.

Therefore, no changes are required. All of this will be clarified in Final RFP.

40. Reference L-III; page 12 of 45; 4.2.4.4 [Subfactor 2: Program Management]

Feedback / Question: This paragraph references Table 6.4.5-Contract Cost Basis; however, this table does not appear in Section 6. Please clarify.

Response: Please reference Table 6.4.5 on page 44.

41. Reference L-III; page 13 of 45; 4.2.5 Subfactor 3: Subcontract Management

Feedback / Question: In the first sentence, should "... form a reasonable sample ..." be "... from a reasonable sample ..."?

Response: It will be changed to “from.”

42. Reference L-III; page 15 of 45; 5.1 General [Vol III Past Performance]

Feedback / Question: Please confirm that the Attachment referenced in this paragraph should be Attachment 2.

Response: Yes, it is Attachment 2

Reference L-III; page 15 of 45; 5.2 Early Proposal Information [Vol III Past Performance]

Attachment 3.

43. Reference L-III; page 16 of 45; 5.3 Relevant Contracts [Vol III Past Performance]

Attachment 2.

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers

44. Reference L-III; page 25 of 45; 7.3.4.3 Make or Buy

Feedback / Question: Since this is an R&D services contract, is a Make or Buy plan appropriate?

Response: Make or Buy plan is not appropriate to this contract. It will be deleted.

45. Reference L-III; page 26 of 45; 7.3.4.6 Required Attachments

Feedback / Question: Please confirm if the following Attachments will be required for this proposal:

L-III; 7.3.4.6.1 Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) and CWBS Dictionary L-III; 7.3.4.6.2 Contract Statement of Work (CSOW) L-III; 7.3.4.6.3 Applicable Documents L-III; 7.3.4.6.4 Integrated Master Plan (IMP) L-III; 7.3.4.6.5 IMP Considerations L-III; 7.3.4.6.6 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

Response: CSOW, IMP, IMP Considerations, IMS are not appropriate to this contract and will be deleted.

46. Reference L-III; page 34 of 45; Attachment 1: Cross Reference Matrix

Feedback / Question: For this procurement, shouldn't the first column of the matrix read "SOW" rather than "REQ. DOC"? Also, please define the intent of the "WORK REQ." column. Please confirm that the IMP and SOO columns are not needed for this procurement. Since the Contract CLINs for this procurement only deal with cost categories and not work functions or deliverables, does the Government still want offerors to include a CLIN column in the Cross Reference Matrix? It would not seem to provide much value in this case.

Response: IMP and SOO are not required for this procurement. The Final RFP will clarify the Cross Reference Matrix.

47. Reference L-III; page 35-37 of 45; Attachment 2: Past Performance Information

Feedback / Question: The format and content of Attachment 2 (Past Performance Information) alone consumes almost 2-1/2 pages without any data included. Some of the response topics (for example, items G and H) will require additional page space for their responses. The first paragraph of this section limits the length of each submission to the limitations set forth at paragraphs 5.3 and 2.2, respectively, of Section L-III of this solicitation. Table 2.2 (Proposal Organization) allows 3 pages of response for each contract submitted; however, section 5.3, including paragraph 5.3.1 (Specific Content), provides a detailed set of response topics which are in addition to the information topics already included within Attachment 2. Our assumption is that the three pages per contract, as allowed by Table 2.2, are intended for our responses to Section 5.3.1 (Specific Content) and the responses to Attachment 2 (Past Performance Information) would be included as proposal (or Volume) attachments, which are not page limited. Please confirm or clarify.

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers

Response: Offerors must submit past performance information and consent letters for release.

The offerors are allowed 10 pages per contract. This will be reflected in the Final RFP.

48. Reference L-III; page 37 of 45; Attachment 2: Past Performance Information

Feedback / Question: Item N requires Earned Value Management (EVM) past performance information. Since there is no EVM requirement for this contract, can this item be deleted?

Response: There is no EVM requirement on this contract and will be deleted.

49. Reference M; page M 3 of 9; M002 - Subfactor 1 - Technical Scenarios

Feedback / Question: In the fourth sentence, after “The offeror’s scenario proposal provides proactive, innovative and agile techniques, practices and procedures regarding .." the sentence goes on to list nine items that are separated by commas. However, there are also seven slashes in this sentence.

This is rather complex sentence to parse and from which to determine the proposal response items that the Government will evaluate. Could the Government look at re-punctuating this sentence or otherwise clarifying the items in the list?

Response: This will be taken into consideration for the Final RFP.

50. Reference M; page M 3 of 9; M002 - Subfactor 1 - Technical Scenarios

Feedback / Question: The term "preventive maintenance" appears in the list of Subfactor 1 evaluation items. The only other reference in the DRFP to "preventive maintenance" refers to SOW Section II -

3.10.3 "preventive maintenance inspection (PMI)." Please confirm that this is/is not the intended Section M reference or provide additional details on this preventive maintenance requirement.

Response: It is the intended Section M reference. The offeror’s response to the technical scenario is expected to address the Air Force’s PMI requirements

51. Reference M; page 4 of 9; M002 - Subfactor 4 Personnel Recruiting and Retention Plan

Feedback / Question: Please indicate which is the last paragraph of this Subfactor. Paragraphs on other topics (SDB, SB, etc.) current follow this subfactor but are not delineated. Also, the sentence that begins, "In arriving at a best value ..." is repeated three times in the 6th and 7th paragraphs on page M - 4 of 9.

Response: This will be clarified in the Final RFP. There are only two subparagraphs to subfactor 4.

52. Reference: SOW; page 5, 1.0 Scope

Feedback / Question: The last sentence of this paragraph is incomplete.

53. Reference: SOW; page 5, 2.0 Applicable Documents

Feedback / Question: The last sentence of this paragraph refers to Appendix I. Shouldn't this be Appendix B?

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers

54. Reference SOW, page 6; 3.1 Organization

Feedback / Question: The second to the last sentence of this paragraph refers to "completing the technology areas." Since the technical work is ongoing, would "supporting the technology areas" be more correct?

Response: This will be changed to supporting in the Final RFP.

55. Reference SOW; page 6, 3.1 Organization

Feedback / Question: The last sentence refers to Appendix A with regard to GFP. Please confirm that the Government will be providing this data in the final RFP.

Response: The Government will provide this data in the Final RFP.

56. Reference SOW, page 6, 3.1.2 Structure

Feedback / Question: This paragraph divides the SOW efforts into two major categories. We assume that the "R&D Technical Effort" corresponds to SOW Section 3.3 (Technical Research and Development Programs). However, the mapping of "Management/Administrative Effort" to the rest of the SOW is not clear. Apparently "Management" would refer to SOW Section 3.4 (Program Management); however, which SOW functions are considered to be "Administrative"? Would this standing up be SOW Sections 3.5 through 3.12? (Actually, it not obvious why it is necessary or desirable to divide the SOW efforts in the Technical and Management/Administrative categories?)

Response: The paragraph will be deleted

57. Reference SOW; page 6; 3.1.3 Location Feedback / Question: This paragraph references additional information found at section 1.5.1. We cannot locate that section, please clarify which document this refers to.

Response: The last sentence will be deleted in the Final RFP

58. Reference SOW; page 6; 3.2.1 Contract Program Manager (CPM)

Feedback / Question: The first paragraph of this section references the CPM. The second paragraph references a "full time corporate official." Is this official intended to also be the CPM? This section also references a "dedicated contract manager." Is this manager intended to also be the CPM?

Response: CPM full-time corporate official, and dedicated contract manager all refer to the same individual.

59. Reference SOW; page 7; 3.2.3 Professional Interactions

Feedback / Question: On the third line, shouldn't "referred" be "refereed"? Are the activities identified in this paragraph direct charge efforts? This same direct charge question applies to the requirement to publish technical reports and journal articles, identified in the last sentence of Section 3.3 on page 7.

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers

Response: Refereed is correct for para 3.2.3.

60. Reference SOW; page 12; 3.4.1 Organization

Feedback / Question: On the ninth line of the second paragraph, it appears that "track" should be "tracked."

Response: Tracked is correct.

61. Reference SOW; page 13; 3.6.2 AFRL RZ-West Duty Hours

Feedback / Question: The duty hours in this paragraph seem to differ from those in Section 3.1.4 Operating Hours. Please clarify.

Response: Para 3.1.4 will be changed to 0600-1800. Section 3.6.2 gives more detail for the Entry Control Point (ECP) hours.

62. Reference SOW; page 21, Section II Government Furnished Property and Facilities

Feedback / Question: Section II of the SOW begins on page 21; however, the paragraph numbers in this section (Section II) begin with "2.1" (Government-Furnished Facilities). Due to the requirement for proposal Cross Reference Matrices, we suggest that having two separate SOW sections, without consecutively running paragraph numbers throughout the entire SOW document, the cross references will become more cumbersome and increase the potential for confusion. For example, references to the Government Furnished Property requirement would need to be "SOW II-2.2." (This problem can also be seen at the end of the second page of the Table of Contents.)

Response: The Government will correct Table of Contents for the Final RFP.

63. Reference Draft RFP, Section I, Page 27 of 29 Feedback / Question: Does Base Support provide for or provide access to a copier?

Response: No.

64. Reference Draft RFP, Section I, Page 29 of 29

Feedback / Question: Where are Attachment A and Attachment B provided?

Response: If you are referring to Exhibits A and B they are located after Section J.

65. Reference SOW 3.1.3, Page 6 Feedback / Question: Where is Section 1.5.1?

Response: This reference will be deleted.

66. Reference SOW 3.7.2, Page 15 Feedback / Question: There does not appear to be a CDRL item description for the Written Safety Program. Please clarify. When is this document due?

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers

Response: This will be clarified in final RFP. It will be due at the start of full performance.

67. Reference SOW 3.3.1.1.9, Page 9 Feedback / Question: Section 3.3.1.1.9 appears to be missing.

Response: We will re-number Section 3.3.1.1.10 to Section 3.3.1.1.9.

68. Reference Appendix D Feedback / Question: Appendix D provides estimated contract man-year equivalents. Table 6.4.5 in the ITO (page 44 of 45) provides a different number of man-year equivalents. Please clarify.

Response: Appendix D will be changed to reflect 24 CMEs for every Fiscal Year.

69. Reference Section L, 1.1, Page 5 of 45 Feedback / Question: The referenced program/budget funding information is not provided. Please clarify.

Response: See response to question 40.

70. Reference Section L, 2.0, Page 5 of 45 Feedback / Question: The referenced paragraph makes mention of a SOO, PWS and System Specification. Recommend deleting these references.

Response: See response to question 10.

71. Reference Section L, 2.1.5, Page 6 of 45 Feedback / Question: We recommend the Government limit the oral presentation to one hour, IAW the Industry Day briefing, since Fact 1, Subfactors 2, 3, and 4 will have already been discussed in Volume

II.

72. Reference Section L, 2.1.5, Page 6 of 45

Feedback / Question: The referenced paragraph states that the oral presentation will augment the written proposal. Please clarify the word "augment". Is it the Government's intention that new and/or additional information be provided in the oral presentation beyond what is provided in the written proposal, or that the presentation summarize the written proposal? If the presentation is to provide new and/or additional information, please provide instructions as to what additional information is desired.

Response: It expands upon the information contained in the written proposal.

73. Reference Section L, 2.1.5, Page 6 of 45, and Section L 2.2, Page 7 of 45

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers

Feedback / Question: Recommend the Government require deliver of an electronic copy of the oral presentation slides, which would then be provided to the offeror on the scheduled date to be used for the oral presentation.

Response: The government requires the oral presentation slides be delivered in powerpoint format via DVD on the day the written proposal is due. The offeror can choose not to present a slide but cannot add any slides to the briefing once the proposals are due.

74. Reference Section L, 2.2, 2.2.1.1(b), 2.3, Page 7 of 45 Feedback / Question: Does the Government desire that offerors submit electronic copies of their proposal volumes, including the Cost/Price volume? If so, they are not included in Table 2.2 at L.2.2.

Response: The government requires both hard and electronic versions be submitted.

75. Reference Section L, 2.1.1, Page 8 of 45 Feedback / Question: Please clarify the intent of the statement, "Pages shall be double spaced, with 1.5 line spacing".

Response: See response to question 21.

76. Reference Section L, 2.2.3, Page 8 of 45 Feedback / Question: Recommend deleting this paragraph and keeping the scenarios to unclassified to simplify handling of proposals by the Government and offerors. Historically the scenarios have been unclassified.

Response: This section will be deleted.

77. Reference Section L, 2.2.4, Page 9 of 45 Feedback / Question: There appear to be two conflicting statements regarding cross-referencing within a volume, one that allows cross-referencing and the other prohibiting it. Please clarify.

Response: See response to question 2.

78. Reference Section L, 2.2.4, Page 9 of 45 Feedback / Question: The cross-reference matrix includes references to a SOO and PWS, neither of which appear to be provided in the Information to Offerors. Please clarify.

79. Reference Section L, 3.2, Page 10 of 45 Feedback / Question: The cross-reference matrix includes references to a SOO and PWS, neither of which appear to be provided in the Information to Offerors. Please clarify.

80. Reference Section L, 3.2, Page 10 of 45

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers

Feedback / Question: Just to be certain, please confirm that the master table of contents of the entire proposal is not included in the page limitation of Volume I?

Response: The master table of contents is not included in the page limitation.

81. Reference Section L, 4.2.4.1, Page 12 of 45 Feedback / Question: Should the reference to the SOW for the dedicated program manager be 3.2.1?

Response: Yes, it should be 3.2.1.

82. Reference Section L, 5.2, Page 15 of 45 Feedback / Question: Will Volume III be delivered earlier than the other volumes?

Response: Yes, we expect the past performance volume to be delivered 15 calendar days before the other volumes.

83. Reference Section L, 5.3, Page 16 of 45 Feedback / Question: Since Past Performance is an important evaluation Factor, suggest the Government increase the number of recent contracts submitted by subcontractors to 3 to provide more insight into their performance.

Response: The Government does not expect to change the number of subcontractor relevant past performance contracts.

84. Reference Section L, 6.3.5, Page 20 of 45 Feedback / Question: Since this is an R&D Contract, please clarify the requirement for manufacturing labor hours.

Response: This is not required for this procurement, it will be deleted.

85. Reference Section L, 6.4.3, Page 21 of 45 Feedback / Question: Please clarify the purpose of the Cost Summary by Cost Elements requirement, given that the Government is specifying the number of labor hours per Fiscal Year.

Response: The Government is not expecting the offerors to change their disclosure statement and is not directing the number of productive labor hours per man year. Para 6.4.3 will be deleted and we will be providing a cost model for the offerors.

86. Reference Section L, 6.4.4, Page 22 of 45 Feedback / Question: Is the reference to Table 5.4.3 meant to be Table 6.4.3?

Response: We’re going to be deleting the requirement in 6.4.4. We’re not going to be requiring a person loading schedule. The information will be provided in a cost model for the offerors.

87. Reference Section L, 6.4.7, Page 22 of 45

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers

Feedback / Question: Recommend deleting this requirement for an R&D contract.

Response: We will be deleting the requirement for a major material item and equipment list. The offerors will be given a Government plug number for ODCs.

88. Reference Section L, 6.4.10, Page 23 of 45 Feedback / Question: Recommend deleting this requirement for an R&D contract.

Response: The Government will not be requiring an analysis of uncertainty. This requirement will be deleted.

89. Reference Section L, 7.3.4.1, 7.3.4.2, Page 25 of 45 Feedback / Question: Since this is a small business set-aside, should the requirement for SDB/HBCU/MI participation be removed? This question also applies to Section M Subfactor 3.

Response: If the small business set-aside determination is made, the requirement for a subcontractor plan is not required.

90. Reference Section L, 7.3.4.3, Page 25 of 45 Feedback / Question: Since this is an R&D Contract, please clarify the purpose of a Make or Buy Plan.

Response: The Government will be deleting this requirement from the RFP.

91. Reference Section L, 7.3.4.6.1, Page 27 of 45 Feedback / Question: Could not locate the referenced PWBS.

Response: See response to question 34.

92. Reference Section L, 7.3.4.6.2, Page 27 of 45 Feedback / Question: Could not locate the referenced SOO. Also, since a SOW is provided in the ITO, what is the purpose of the CSOW?

Response: See response to question 10 and question 46.

93. Reference Section L, 7.3.4.6.4, Page 27 of 45 Feedback / Question: Please clarify the purpose of an Integrated Master Plan in the context of an R&D contract? Without specific assigned tasks all the IMP will contain is a management plan, which is already required in Volume II. Suggest the requirement for an IMP be reconsidered.

Response: See response to question 46.

94. Reference Section L, 7.3.4.6.6, Page 31 of 45 Feedback / Question: Please clarify the purpose of an Integrated Master Schedule in the context of an R&D contract? Without specific assigned tasks the only milestones in the IMS will be management

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers meetings and deliverables, already required in Volume II. Suggest the requirement for an IMS be reconsidered.

Response: See response to question 46.

95. Reference Section L Attachment 1, Page 34 of 45 Feedback / Question: The Solicitation Cross Reference Matrix refers to a “Req.Doc” and SOO. Please clarify. Can the offeror provide a cross-reference matrix in an offeror-chosen format referencing only the requirements provided in the ITO and SOW?

96. Reference Section L Attachment 2, Page 36 of 45 Feedback / Question: Recommend removing the requirement to discuss Small Business subcontracting compliance (items J, K and L) as this is already a small business set-aside procurement.

Response: This information is not expected to be deleted as it is concerning compliance with subcontracting plans and goals on previous contracts you are submitting for past performance.

97. Reference Section L Attachment 2, Page 36 of 45 Feedback / Question: Recommend removing the requirement at item N since the majority of R&D contracts do not include Earned Value Management.

Response: This requirement will be deleted in the Final RFP.

98. Reference General Question Feedback / Question: Can you provide any information on the required secret clearances on contract?

Particularly for any personnel that we may bring on contract that had a secret clearance in the past but will need to renew?

Response: AFRL/RZOF (Security) only requires that an employee have the ability to get a Common Access Card (CAC) so that an unescorted line badge can be issued for entrance on the installation. If the employee has had a previous secret clearance, an interim clearance can be issued at or near the start of contract performance. The employee will need a National Agency Check with Inquires (NACI) to be processed and cleared for performance on the contract.

99. Reference General Question Feedback / Question: Is there any insurance requirements needed for performance of the contract?

Response: See insurance requirements under FAR 52.228-7 (Insurance -- Liability to Third Persons) for full performance. This reference will be included in the Final RFP and contract.

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers

100. Reference General Question Feedback / Question: In what building and room number will the MIS demonstration be conducted?

Response: Tentatively the MIS demonstration will be held in Bldg 2800 at Edwards AFB, Directors Conference Room.

101. Reference General Question Feedback / Question: Will the demonstration be on a Government computer, or will the offerors provide their own computers?

Response: Each offeror will need to provide their own computers/laptops. The computers can be connected to the overhead projector in the room if desired.

Reference General Question

Feedback / Question: What internet connectivity will be provided? Can we provide our own wireless internet access?

Response: Since each contractor will need to use their own computers, base internet will not be provided. Yes, you can have your own wireless internet access. Verizon does work at Edwards

AFB.

102. Reference CDRL Data Item A004 Feedback / Question: We may have missed it, but by what contractual mechanism will the AFRL PM provide technical direction to the contractor? Since there are no references to Task Orders or similar documents, we are unclear how the AFRL will notify our PM of new work, changes in requirements or similar under the in-place Technical and Management Work Plan.

Response: The Government Task Manager will submit goals and objectives to the contractor.

The contractor will then write a task plan for approval based on the requirements.

103. Reference CDRL Data Item A005 Feedback / Question: Are we to use the Base Document (27 February 1987), or Revision A (30 October 2006)? The tailoring instructions refer to the Base Document.

Response: Use Revision A (30 Oct 2006).

ARES III Solicitation No. FA9300‐11‐R‐0002 Post‐Industry Day Question and Answers

104. Reference General Question Feedback / Question: The DRFP states that in future costing an “Escalation Factor” is to be used.

What is that factor (CPI, PPI, DoD-specific)?

Response: The Government will use the Inflation Rates as escalation factors that will be current as of proposal due date. The information will be provided on a cost model.

105. Reference General Question Feedback / Question: Is Arial Narrow considered an approved font for this proposal?

Response: No, must be Arial only.

106. Reference Section L. Table 6.4.3 Feedback / Question: Cost Summary by Cost Element allows for only one labor rate. How would an offeror provide on-and-off site rates, interdivisional labor rates, etc?

Response: A cost model is being issued as an attachment to the RFP. We believe the cost model attached to the RFP is flexible enough to allow offerors to follow their disclosure statements or the normal way offerors propose. The cost model allows for all labor rates, i.e. on-site, off-site, interdivisional, subcontractors, etc. A box is provided on each tab of the cost model for the offeror to provide comments and justification for any and all changes made to the cost model to conform to their disclosure statement requirement or general accounting practices.

107. Reference General Question Feedback / Question: Some offers have a General & Administrative (G&A) rate that differs from their Materials Handling Rate. Sect L. Table 6.4.3-Cost Summary by Cost Element allows for only one rate.

How do we proceed?

Response: Changes are allowed to the cost model to add additional G&As, material handling charges, subcontract charges, etc. Also, see response to 2 above.