FA9422-16-R-8036_(RFP_Q A_18Mar2016).pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE NUCLEAR WEAPONS CENTER (AFMC)

KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE NEW MEXICO

18 March 2016

MEMORANDUM FOR Interested Parties

FROM: AFNWC/PZNK

SUBJECT: FA9422-16-R-8036, WS3 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP); Questions and

Answers

The purpose of this Memorandum is to notify all interested parties of questions received to the subject Request for Proposal and the answers to those questions. An amendment is being accomplished incorporating some of the answers stated below and will be posted once completed. Questions are now closed.

Q# References Questions Answers

General Can the Government please provide the software design/development documentation available on the current system?

The original MPADS Software

Architecture Description and the (Visual Basic) MPADS software modules will be provided via the AMRDEC dropbox. Both the software and the description document are classified DCNI.

SOW 6.4 Will the government provide support on the bases including mobilization yards, space for a contractor supplied office trailer with supporting utilities, site utility locations, etc.?

What type of base support (i.e., mobilization yards, space for a contractor supplied office trailer with supporting utilities, site utility locations, etc.) can be expected at each location?

The government will provide

Interior storage: Secure interior dry storage area (at least 10 ft x

10 ft) for test equipment, tools, and all parts/materials associated with the installations.

Exterior storage: Fenced-off, outdoor area of sufficient size

(at least 30 ft x 30 ft) to stage equipment and cables.

TMCR Sec 1, pg 1 Section 1 states that the tailored TMCR shall be attached to the CDRL for TO delivery, and shall be included in the proposal as a separate exhibit, but Section L provides no instructions where this is to

A tailored TMCR is not required as part of the proposal.

The complete TMCR reference states:

“The Contractor may propose and submit, in writing be included in the proposal.

Where does the tailored TMCR belong in the proposal?

additional tailoring to the TO

Manager Agency/Agent

(TOMA) and Procuring

Contracting Officer (PCO) for consideration. The tailored

TMCR shall be attached to the

CDRL for TO delivery, and shall be included in the proposal as a separate exhibit, referenced in the proposal

SOW.”

A tailored TMCR is not required. If the offeror wishes to tailor the TMCR, it can be addressed after contract award.

Sec B Schedule CLINs

6, 8, 14; pgs 4, 5, 12

CLINs 0006, 0008, and 0014 are travel CLINs with not to exceed (NTE) amounts. Are all bidders required to use these NTE values as “plug” numbers in the Cost/Price proposal?

Yes.

Sec B Schedule CLINs

6, 8, 14; pgs 4, 5, 12

Do these CLINs cover non-

Government directed travel that is internal to the

Contractor team, which is required in performance of the

SOW?

No. Any travel for performance related to the

SOW must be approved by the

Government. The Contractor is responsible for maintaining and providing travel itineraries and expense reports, as well as estimated and actual costs IAW

CDRL A001.

Sec I: FAR 52.232-16, Progress Payments, and

DFAR 252.232-7004,

DOD Progress Payment

Rates

Based on these clauses, we want to validate that it is the

Government’s intention to make at least monthly progress payments with a progress payment rate of 90 percent based upon percentage complete as identified in the

Integrated Master Schedule.

Yes. DFAR 252.232-7004 will apply.

Sec L; Table 2.1 &

4.2.6.1.1.2, pgs 4 & 11

Table 2.1 depicts the Master

Schedule (IMS) coming before the Integrated Master Plan

(IMP). However, Paragraph

4.2.6.1.1.2 states the IMP

The IMP should come before the IMS. Section L is updated to reflect this reordering.

comes before the IMS. Please clarify the correct order of these two sections.

Sec L; T-2.1, pg 4 Table 2.1 Row II.d4 Staffing

Approach states that Resumes

& Subcontract Plan is not included in page limit.

However, there are no references, instructions, or evaluation criteria mentioning the Subcontract Plan anywhere else in the RFP. Please confirm that a Subcontract

Plan is not to be provided with the proposal.

There is no requirement for a

Subcontracting Plan. The reference to a Subcontracting

Plan under Table 2.1 is in error and will be deleted. Note that under Sec L, L011 Applicable

Clauses, the first sentence states “appropriate clauses to be included in the contract will be determined based on the

Offeror’s response to the

Section K representations.” As such, it lists some of the clauses which may be included as a result of the offeror’s response to the Section K representations. As all offerors are small business concerns, none of the clauses identified in

L011 with regards to

Subcontracting Plans apply.

Sec L; T-2.1, pg 4 Table 2.1 Row II.d2 Integrated

Master Schedule (IMS) is to be provided as 10 pages in MS

Project. For ease of readability, may offerors provide these 10 pages in 11” x

17” format, but have these 11” x 17”s count as only one page each for the IMS only?

Per Section L, para 2.2.1.1(b):

“Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, and plans. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and each 8.5 by 11 surface of a foldout shall be counted as a separate page.”

Sec L; Sec L 4.2.6.1.2

& SOW 3.1.3; Sec L Pg

12 and SOW Pg 14

There is a discrepancy between

Section L and the SOW regarding the list of key personnel. The SOW lists an

Information Assurance (IA)

Lead as a key person, whereas

Section L does not. Also, The key personnel listed in

SOW para 3.1.3 are correct.

The key personnel listed in

Section L para 4.2.6.1.2 should be as follows (copied from

SOW para 3.1.3): Program

Manager (PM), Deputy

Section L refers to a Test Lead, whereas the SOW refers to a

Lead Test Manager, and

Section L refers to a Lead

Network Design Engineer, whereas the SOW refers to a

Lead Network Design/

Integration Engineer.

Please clarify if the

Information Assurance (IA)

Lead should be listed in Sec

L as key.

Please clarify if the correct title is Test Lead or Lead

Test Manager.

Please clarify if the correct title is Lead Network Design

Engineer or Lead Network

Design/Integration Engineer.

Program Manager, Information

Assurance (IA) Lead, Lead

Network Design/Integration

Engineer, Lead Installation

Manager, Lead Systems

Engineer, Lead Test Manager, and Lead Life Cycle System

Manager.

Sec L; 6.4.1, pgs

18&19

We kindly request that the

Sample Table 1 Cost Element

Summary be provided to offerors in MS Excel format.

Yes, this will be provided, but please note that this is a sample and is not mandatory. Offerors may use their own pricing formats as long as the same requested information is provided.

Sec L; 6.4.1, pg 20 Paragraph 6.4.3 Probable

Subcontractors refers to a subcontractor performing in excess of 10% (or $13.5M) of the effort. Because the contract value is $33M-$38M, should the value above reference 10% or $3.5M, which would be based on an approximate contract value of $35M instead of $135M?

The second paragraph under

Sec L, 6.4.3 will be revised to clarify that subcontractor pricing data is required for subcontractors performing more than 10% of the prime contractor’s proposed price.

The reference to $13.5M will be deleted.

Sec L; Atch 2 & 3, pgs

28-33

If a project was performed as a subcontractor, may we cite three Prime Contractor Points of Contact rather than

Government contacts?

Provide both Government and

Prime Contractor Points of

Contact, if known

DD 254; Blk 14b, pg5 The contractor requires access to classified source data up to and including US SECRET and NATO SECRET in

The WS3 Program Office cannot guarantee access to

SIPRNET on military installations.

support of the work effort.

Access to SIPRNET is not required in performance of this contract, but would be helpful.

Do we need to establish

SIPRNET in our access controlled facility or will we be provided access to SIPRNET on a military installation?

DD254; 11D,pg1 Is any of the GFE listed in

Paragraph 6.1.1 of the SOW

(TACLANEs, Code Storage

Modules, etc.) classified, and if so, shouldn’t this box be checked “Yes”?

No. TACLANES, Code

Storage Modules, etc. are controlled through COMSEC procedures. These are not defined as “classified hardware”.

SOW and SRD; SOW

2.1.2.11, 2.1.3.6, and

2.2.1.6; SRD 4.4.2;

SOW pages 8, 10, 13 and SRD page

The SOW requires the contractor to purchase

TACLANEs for the Phase I

(Paragraphs 2.1.2.11 and

2.1.3.6) and Phase II

(Paragraph 2.2.1.6) SILs.

However, SRD Paragraph

4.4.2 states that the

Government will provide the

TACLANEs for the SILs. Will the Phase I and Phase II SIL

TACLANEs be Government

Furnished Equipment (GFE)?

The government will procure

TACLANES for the operational installations only.

The contractor is responsible for purchasing TACLANES for the Ramstein First Article and the SILs. The TACLANES installed at the Ramstein First

Article and SILs will be turned over to the Government and become Government property when those assets are accepted by Government.

RFP, SOW, SRD and

RVTM; CLIN 0015,

SOW 2.3, SRD 4.2.4

and RVTM 4.2.4 RFP

Pages 12 & 13, SOW

Page 13, SRD

Are CLINs 0015AA and

0015AB covering design, test, installation and verification of

WS3 SLEP Capability

Enhancements priced CLINS, i.e., to be quoted at this time?

Yes.

SOW;2.3,pg13 Are any additional cameras expected to be added to a typical PAS?

Yes. There is currently one camera per PAS. Additional cameras will need to be added to monitor all alarm sensor zones per RVTM 4.2.4.6. In the PAS, additional cameras will have to be added to cover the BMS and motion sensors.

SOW; SOW 2.2.1.8 and

SRD 4.3.5; SOW Page

13 and SRD page 55

SOW Section 2.2.1.8 requires the contractor to provide spares kits at each site to maintain an

Operational Availability of

The SOW requirement of 24 months is correct.

The SRD has no “shall”

99.4% at each site for 24 months of operation, but SRD

Section 4.3.5 requires the contractor to provide sufficient spares at each site to support an Operational Availability of

99.4% for 12 months of operation. Is the contractor to supply sufficient spares at each site to maintain an Operational

Availability of 99.4% at each site for 12 months or 24 months?

statements, so that document does not contain any SLEP requirements. All technical requirements are contained in the SRD Appendix C: RVTM.

SRD Section 4.3.5 is not a contact requirement.

SOW;3.1.3.8,pg15 This para requires S//RD clearance yet the DD254 lists

“No” in box 10b (for

Restricted Data). Can you de-conflict these different requirements?

SOW para 3.1.3.8 states “Any employee installing components in a vault shall be required to hold, at a minimum, a Secret, Restricted Data

(S//RD) clearance.”

This complements SOW para

2.2.1.5.6 “The contractor shall ensure that all physical connections to the WS3 operational system be made by

US citizens with at least a secret clearance. (e.g. Foreign nationals are not allowed to connect new fiber lines to buildings hosting the WS3

MFs.)”

The “Restricted Data” (S//RD) requirement in the SOW is an error. Personnel will only require a US Secret clearance.

This will be corrected in the

SOW.

The personnel working within the vault and with the MFs need to have a US Secret clearance, even if they won’t be accessing classified information.

21 SOW; 3.1.4.3, pg15 This paragraph states “The No. The Government is contractor shall report on the program financial status (Plan, Actual Costs and Forecast) consistent with the contract

CLIN structure, schedule, risk/ opportunities and technical performance (CDRL A001).”

Because this is a firm fixed price contract, request the reporting on program financial status be removed.

interested in seeing actual financial expenditures for future budgetary considerations. Contractor format is acceptable for cost reporting.

SOW;5.2,pg21 Are there any components used in the SLEP that have to be listed on the PL-1N List? If so, please list which ones.

No.

SOW;6.4,pg22 Will the Government provide storage for controlled parts, software, documents, etc.?

No. Per SOW 3.2.1.1, the contractor will require a

COMSEC account for accountability of the

TACLANES or other

COMSEC items.

SOW, DD254; 3.1.3.8,

10B, SOW Page 15, DD254 Page 1

This para requires S//RD clearance yet the DD254 lists

“No” in box 10b (for

Restricted Data). Can you deconflict these different requirements?

SOW para 3.1.3.8 states “Any employee installing components in a vault shall be required to hold, at a minimum, a Secret, Restricted Data

(S//RD) clearance.”

This complements SOW para

2.2.1.5.6 “The contractor shall ensure that all physical connections to the WS3 operational system be made by

US citizens with at least a secret clearance. (e.g. Foreign nationals are not allowed to connect new fiber lines to buildings hosting the WS3

MFs.)”

The “Restricted Data” (S//RD) requirement in the SOW is an error. Personnel will only require a US Secret clearance.

This will be corrected in the

SOW.

The personnel working within the vault and with the MFs need to have a US Secret clearance, even if they won’t be accessing classified information.

Program Milestones;

pgs

1-2

The Program Milestone shows completion of the Third Site by

12/29/2020, which occurs after the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth

Sites. Should the completion of the Third Site be 12/29/2019?

Yes.

Reference the SOW

Section 3.1.3.4 and

3.1.3.4.1

Can 10 + years of additional experience be substituted for education for the Program

Manger and/or the Deputy

Program Manager?

Yes.

SLEP_TMCR_17Feb16

(pg 13)

Are the existing TOs 11N-50-

1003, -1004, -1005, and -1006 to be modified to create new

TOs 11N-50-1013, -1014, -

1015, -1016?

Yes. With one exception, the contractor will split the current

11N-50-1003 into two new

T.O.s 11N-50-1012 and 11N-

50-1013, separating the operations and maintenance functions.

TMCR (pg 9) Is there a TO 11N-50-1002 to use as a baseline for TO 11N-

50-1012? If so, can we get a copy of TO 11N-50-1002 or at a minimum anticipated page/graphic counts for TO

11N-50-1012?

There is not a TO 11N-50-

1002. The contractor will split the current 11N-50-1003 into two new T.O.s 11N-50-1012 and 11N-50-1013, separating the operations and maintenance functions. 11N-50-1003 can be evaluated by the contractor to anticipate the page counts for

11N-50-1012 and 11N-50-

1013.

TMCR (pg 9) The same number TO (11N-2-

06-15) is listed as item 6 in

Table 2 and item 17 in

Attachment 2 (pg 13). Is existing TO 11N-2-06-15 to be a revision only? Can we get a copy or at a minimum anticipated page/graphic counts?

Per TMCR Table 2, the government anticipates that the current 11N-50-1003 will be significantly revised with the replacement of the WS3

AC&D system. The contractor will be responsible for revising

-1003 with the new content and separating the operations and maintenance functions into new

TOs 11N-50-1012 and 11N-50-

1013. We don’t expect that the rest of the WS3 TOs will be significantly impacted, so the contractor will only be responsible for providing

Source Data for T.O. changes.

11N-2-06-15 is the WS3 Work

Unit Code Manual. It is 56 pages long with zero graphics.

TMCR Table 2 (pg 9) Two TOs are identified as

"Revision" and four as "Source

Data". Should all these numbers be new TOs? If not, what level of effort is required for each?

Based on the expected changes to the WS3 AC&D system, the contractor will be responsible for significantly rewriting TOs

11N-50-1012 and 11N-50-1013 based on 11N-50-1003. The contractor will be responsible for providing recommended change pages for the four TOs marked as “Source Data” for the government to use to update those TOs.

TMCR Para 3 (pg 1) Mentions COTS manuals and

Flight Manuals, but those are not identified as part of the scope in TMCR Table 1 (pg 7-

8). Could the government please clarify?

The contractor is not responsible for providing

COTS manuals or Flight manuals as part of the SLEP.

All maintenance/operations instructions shall be included within the TOs listed in Table

1.

TMCR Para 14(pg 4-5) Mentions TCTOs, again not identified as part of the scope in Table 11. Could the government please clarify?

TCTOs will only be required if there are any required changes to the SLEP configuration after the government has accepted a site (e.g. resolving a latent defect) during the performance of the SLEP contract.

TMCR Para 4 (pg 2) Mentions DTDs. Could the government confirm that this is not SMGL so DTDs are not applicable and that requirements of specs MIL-

STD-38784 and MIL-PRF-

38807 would be followed?

SMGL is not applicable. Per

TMCR Table 1 MIL-PRF

38807 and MIL-STD-38784 are required.

Section L 4.2.2, Volume Organization, Lists (9) Risk Matrix as a part of the Technical Volume but Section L 2.2

Organization/Number of

Copies/Page Limits and

Section L 4.2.6.2 list it as

Technical Risk. Please confirm the proper name for this section is Technical Risk and recommend to update the name in Section L 4.2.2.

Correct, it should be Technical

Risk. As technical risk falls under subfactor 1.4

Management Approach, it will be deleted under Sec L, 4.2.2.

Section L, para 6.4.3 Will the Govt please provide clarification regarding subcontractor costs and pricing data required performing in excess of 10% or ($13.5M). Is this simply in excess of 10% of the prime contractors proposed value or is the requirement for those subcontractors whose price is in excess of $13.5M?

The second paragraph under

Section L, 6.4.3 will be revised to clarify that subcontractor pricing data is required for subcontractors performing more than 10% of the prime contractor’s proposed price.

The reference to $13.5M will be deleted.

General Please confirm that the Master

Table of Contents in Vol I, Executive Summary is not subject to the Page Limit of 3 pages.

While the Master Table of

Contents is not subject to page limitations, the executive summary is limited to three pages in accordance with

Section L Table 2.1.

SOW Section 3.1.3 identifies the Information

Assurance (IA) Lead as a Key

Person for this effort however in Section L, 4.2.6.1.2, Staffing

Approach, the IA Lead is not identified as required for submission of a resume.

Please confirm if the IA Lead is a Key person and if a resume is required for this submission.

The key personnel listed in

SOW para 3.1.3 are correct.

The key personnel listed in

Section L para 4.2.6.1.2 should be as follows (copied from

SOW para 3.1.3): Program

Manager (PM), Deputy

Program Manager, Information

Assurance (IA) Lead, Lead

Network Design/Integration

Engineer, Lead Installation

Manager, Lead Systems

Engineer, Lead Test Manager, and Lead Life Cycle System

Manager.

TMCR Para 4 Mentions DTDs. The TMCR does not require TOs in

SMGL, so DTDs are not applicable. Is the intent of the

SMGL is not applicable. Per

TMCR Table 1 MIL-PRF

38807 and MIL-STD-38784 are required.

Government to require the contractor follow specs MIL-

STD-38784 and MIL-PRF-

38807?

TMCR Para 10 Requires a TMQAP. Is that a separate deliverable, or will

ISO 9001:2008 process (which includes multiple review cycles with the government) be acceptable?

The TMQAP plan required by the TMCR does not require a separate deliverable. The contractor’s TO quality process will be evaluated for conformance to accepted commercial standards, such as the ISO 9000 series IAW TO

00-5-3.

Section L.2.3, Electronic Offers

(p. 6 of 36)

Are offerors allowed to submit any of the electronic files on the CDs using PDF format?

Yes, unless a different format is specifically specified in

Section L (i.e. Section L, 6.4.5

Submission of Cost Models)

52.236-27 – Section L, 52.236-2 – Section I, 52.236-3 – Section I, 52.247-5 – Section I, It is our understanding that site visits are prohibited until the time of award. However, Section L, page 1, FAR Clause

52.236-27 and Section I, page

25, FAR Clauses Incorporated by Reference 52.236-3 and

52.247-5 state we should have knowledge of the site conditions prior to proposal submission and that the

Offeror will not be relieved of any responsibility for completing the work without additional expense to the

Government. Furthermore, Section I, page 25, FAR Clause

52.236-2 states that prior to the start of work, any discrepancies between the information issued by the

Government and the actual site conditions must be submitted to the Contracting Officer who will issue an equitable adjustment.

Will offerors be allowed to inspect the sites prior to

Site visits by potential bidders are not prohibited. However, there are some stipulations:

1) The government will not pay for any travel, per diem, etc.

costs associated with pre-award site visits.

2) Most of the host nations have a 30-45 day advanced notification for visit requests.

The WS3 Program Office will sponsor a request from bidders, however there is no guarantee that the host nation will approve the visit request.

Only FAR clause 52.236-27 currently applies. FAR 52.236-

27 stipulates that FAR 52.236-

2 and 52.236-3 will be added in the awarded contract. As the

Government reserves the right to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions, FAR clauses

52.236-2 and 52.236-3 were included in Section I of the solicitation as this will become the awarded contract. As for submission or are site visits limited to post-award? Please clarify which of these clauses applies and/or how they should be interpreted in regards to site conditions and visits.

FAR 52.247-5, this was included in error and will be deleted as it only applies to solicitations and contracts for transportation or for transportation-related service which this effort is not.

42 Section L, page 1, Section 1.1

What is the meaning of “The threshold completion date is 30

September 2021.”?

The government’s objective is that the entire SLEP design/installation is complete by 30 Sep 2020. If this completion date is not feasible, then a 1 year slip to the project completion date (to 30 Sep

2021) is acceptable as the

Government’s threshold requirement.

Section L, Table 2.1, Section L.C. L011

Page count is listed as “5 pages

(Resumes & Subcontract Plan not included in page limit)”.

What is the Subcontract Plan referred to in this statement? It is not mentioned elsewhere in

Section L or M.

There is mention of a subcontract plan as follows:

(e) Subcontracting Plan.

DFARS 219.708 was amended to require the use of clause

252.219-7004, Small Business

Subcontracting Plan (Test

Program), instead of 252.219-

7003, Small Business

Subcontracting Plan (DoD

Contracts), and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting

Plan, in prime contracts with contractors that have comprehensive subcontracting plans approved under the test program described in DFARS

219.702. Also, include in the

prime contract, solely for the purpose of flowing the clauses down to subcontractors, FAR clause 52.219-9, Small

There is no requirement for a

Subcontracting Plan. The reference to a Subcontracting

Plan under Table 2.1 is in error and will be deleted. Note that under Sec L, L011 Applicable

Clauses, the first sentence states “appropriate clauses to be included in the contract will be determined based on the

Offeror’s response to the

Section K representations.” As such, it lists some of the clauses which may be included as a result of the offeror’s response to the Section K representations. As all offerors are small business concerns, none of the clauses identified in

L011 with regards to

Subcontracting Plans apply.

Business Subcontracting Plan, and 252.219-7003, or when contract will not be reported in

FPDS, FAR clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting

Plan with its Alternate III and

252.219-7003 Small Business

Subcontracting Plan (DoD

Contracts) with its Alternate I.

What requirements are there for a Subcontracting Plan for this solicitation? The above clause is unclear.

Section L, 2.2.1.1 (b)

Do engineering drawings need to comply with the 10 point font restriction?

Yes.

Section L, 2.5

Are there additional documents available in a technical library other than those already furnished to the offerors?

The MPADS v 3.3.1 software will also be provided along with a software description document via the AMRDEC dropbox.

46 SOW, Section 3.1.3

Section L, 4.2.6.1.2

Section M, 3.2.1.4.5

The lists of key personnel in

Sections L/M and the SOW do not match – which list is accurate?

The key personnel listed in

SOW para 3.1.3 are correct.

The key personnel listed in

Section L para 4.2.6.1.2 should be as follows (copied from

SOW para 3.1.3): Program

Manager (PM), Deputy

Program Manager, Information

Assurance (IA) Lead, Lead

Network Design/Integration

Engineer, Lead Installation

Manager, Lead Systems

Engineer, Lead Test Manager, and Lead Life Cycle System

Manager.

47 Section L, 4.2.6.1.1.2.1

Section L, 6.4.2

Section M, 3.2.1.4.4

Resource-loaded GANTT charts and person loading schedules are referred to in the referenced sections, yet we could not find a specific explicit requirement to submit an electronic MS Project file with our proposal (we recognize that Section L, 2.3

The government expects that the IMS will be in Microsoft project format.

With regards to Section L, 6.4.2, please note that the person loading schedule is called out in the cost/price section. As such, on the CD, it allows for MS Project files as an allowable format). Please confirm that you want us to submit our MS Project file, with resources loaded into it.

For organizational purposes on the CD, should this file be associated with Volume II?

should be associated with

Volume IV – Cost/Price.

48 Section L, 2.2, Table

2.1

Section L, 4.2.6.1.1.2

Section M, 3.2.1.4.3

Our full IMS has too much detail to be shown within the

10 page limitation. Will a summary level schedule depiction in the printed material (and associated electronic Word file for

Volume II) suffice along with the assumed MS Project submittal of the entire detailed

IMS?

Yes.

49 Section L, 7.3.4.2 Are Associate Contractor

Agreements only required to be submitted to support the cable installation at the seven sites (i.e., Host Nation subcontractors) and not for any other subcontractors or vendors that may be used to support design, installation, testing, etc.?

The Government does not anticipate any ACAs.

IG5317.9000

*Prime contractor to subcontractor relationships do not constitute ACAs, and are not subject to this section’s requirements.

*The contracting officer may require ACAs when contractors working on separate government contracts must cooperate, share resources or otherwise jointly participate in working on contracts or projects. Tailor each ACA to the requirements of the individual contracting situation.

50 Section L, Attachment

Certain references on

Attachment 1 could not be verified (i.e., either the reference points to a section that does not exist or it points to a section that does not match the associated topic). We are submitting a revised

Updated reference matrix will be included in Section L Atch

1.

Attachment 1 for your review;

we suggest that the references are updated. Notes are included in Yellow Highlighted Text to explain our review.

Section L, II.C.(c)

FAR 52.229-10

(c) State of New Mexico.

Section I of this solicitation may contain the clause at FAR

52.229-10, STATE OF NEW

MEXICO GROSS RECEIPTS

AND COMPENSATING TAX.

The resultant contract will contain this clause only if performance is in whole or in part within the State of New

Mexico and the contract directs or authorizes the contractor to acquire property as a direct cost under the contract.

No. IAW FAR 29.401-4 (b) this clause does not apply as one of the conditions for inclusion of this clause is that the contractor is performing a cost-reimbursement contract which is not the case for this effort.

52 Section L, 6.1.5 Section L, 6.1.5 states “All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. All loaded labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny.” We intend to offer our pricing in US dollars and have specified to our European vendors that they price in the

US dollars as well. However, we cannot control the exchange rate between US dollars and local currencies and many of our potential vendors want assurances that the cost of the work will be adjusted to allow for differences in exchange rates at the time of invoicing. Will the government allow for adjustments to the portion of our pricing attributable to foreign firms to allow for exchange rates at the time of invoice?

No.

53 Section L, 4.1 We really appreciate the While not explicitly called out, importance of the program priorities stated in Section L,

4.1. While implicit throughout

the Section M Evaluation

Criteria, they are not explicitly called out in any of the evaluation factors. Could the technical evaluation subfactors include these program priorities explicitly so that offeror’s proposals can be rated on their ability to satisfy the program priorities?

these program priorities are reflected in the technical evaluation subfactors.

The program priorities stated in para 4.1 (“meeting technical requirements, integrating the

SLEP system with the legacy

WS3 system, completing installation no later than 30

September 2020 (the threshold completion date is 30

September 2021), and integrating COTS into the

SLEP design in an effort to enhance system supportability and maintainability throughout the life of the system”) are already incorporated into

Subfactor 1.1 Systems

Engineering (Design), Subfactor 1.2 Installation Plan, and Subfactor 1.3 Life Cycle

System Management.

54 Section L, 7.2 There is a designated spot in the contracts volume for exceptions to solicitation requirements. However, there is not a designated spot for assumptions that we want to have included in a resulting contract that explain the basis of our proposal. In which volume should we include assumptions?

Include all assumptions in their respective volume based on their respective subject matter

(i.e. technical assumptions in

Volume II – Technical).

55 SRD Section 4.4.2 and

SOW Section 2.1.2.11, 2.2.1.6

Attachment 5 GFP List

SRD Section 4.4.2 States:

“Items to be provided to implement the SIL include the following (See GFE list in

SOW for more detail):

• TACLANE KG-175D

encryptor

• TACLANE KG-175G

encryptor …… “

The government will procure

TACLANES for the operational installations only.

The contractor is responsible for purchasing TACLANES for the Ramstein First Article and the SILs.

However the SOW Sections

2.1.2.11 and 2.2.1.6 state that the contractor shall be required to purchase enough

TACLANESs to support the

Phase 1 and Phase 2 SILs.

Attachment 5 GFP List contains Qty 175 TACLANE

KG-175D and Qty 29

TACLANE KG-175G.

Will the government clarify who is responsible for procurement of the TACLANE devices for the both SILs?

56 Attachment 8 Program

Milestones

SOW Sec 9.2.8

In SLEP Attachment 8, Program Milestone, the Test

Readiness Review occurs prior to First PAS Contractor

Testing.

The SOW Section 9.2.8, TRR description states: “The TRR shall be a multi-disciplined technical review convened by the contractor and conducted at the contractor’s facility. The

Contractor shall present a TRR for SLEP, in briefing format to verify the SLEP First Article is ready for the government’s DT.

The contractor’s briefing shall document previous test objectives, test methods and procedures, scope of test results with traceability back to SRD requirements, in order to confirm through documentation that all of the

SLEP technical requirements have been achieved and that the SLEP is ready to proceed into formal government DT”

The TRR description above, The SLEP SOW para 9.2.8 is correct. TRR should occur after First PAS Contractor

Testing, prior to Government

DT. Attachment 8 will be updated to reflect the change.

indicates that First PAS CT and First Article CT should be complete prior to the TRR, so the Contractor can prove to the

Government in the TRR that

SLEP First Article is Ready for

Government DT.

Will the government clarify if the SLEP Attachment 8, Program Milestone or the TRR description is correct? Does the

TRR occur prior to contractor testing in Europe or after First

PAS CT and First Article CT in Europe?

57 SRD in section 4.1.1

Attachment

5 GFP List

The SRD in section 4.1.1states

“SLEP” modifications are required for the Power

Distribution Panel (PDP)…”.

Also, modifications are required for the conduit between the PDP and SCP for new wire routing to accommodate new equipment and functionality. Additionally, Attachment 5 (GFP list) does not include the PDP.

Will the government consider providing Qty 4 PDP as part of the GFP to enable effective modification and design (form, fit, function) for the SILs?

No. However, the government can provide engineering drawings of the PDP upon request so the contractor can create models.

58 RVTM ID 4.6.3.2 and

4.6.3.11 RVTM ID 4.6.3.2 and 4.6.3.11

indicate that all COTS and

SLEP equipment designed specifically for the WS3 and for non-environmentally controlled areas shall meet a low temperature of -70 ºF.

However, the GFP TACLANE devices (COTS) low temperature range is -40 ºF.

Will the government consider

No. The TACLANEs are a required technology with no substitutes. The government anticipates that they will be positioned inside the vault where they will be insulated against extreme temperatures.

Other SLEP components will be install in the PAS, external to the vault, where they will not have that insolation protection.

making all non-environmentally controlled nonoperational low temperature levels for SLEP equipment match the -40 ºF range of the TACLANE devices?

59 Section L, 2.2 Table 2.1 With the additional requirements for information to be included in the LCSM section (two new sections in

Section 4.2.5, items c and d), could an additional 5 pages be allowed for this section for a total of 20 pages instead of 15 pages?

Yes. Section L will be updated to allow an additional 5 pages.

60 SOW, Section 2.3

SRD, Para 4.2.4

RVTM

RFP Section B, CLIN

0015AA

Section 2.3 of the final WS3

Scope of Work has been revised from the draft version by removing the verbiage that states this is not a contract requirement. Additionally the

SRD in paragraph 4.2.4 and the

RVTM outline what the nature of the enhancement are.

DRAFT SOW 2.3 The contractor shall design, develop, test, install, and verify

WS3 SLEP Performance

Enhancement described in

SRD para 4.2.4 and

Requirements Verification and

Traceability Matrix section

4.2.4 and associated subparagraphs. These requirements are not a contract requirement unless directed in writing by the

Contracting Officer as an exercised contract option

[emphasis added]. The WS3

SLEP Performance

Enhancement includes requirements for increased video management system capability, video displaying, The SLEP “Capability

Enhancements” are to be considered part of the baseline

SLEP design and should be part of the proposal. The installation part of these efforts is a contract option that will be implemented at the same time as the rest of the Phase II installation CLINs.

archiving, and enhancement techniques, operator duress mitigation, and additional cameras.

Final SOW 2.3 The contractor shall design, develop, test, install, and verify WS3 SLEP

Capability Enhancement requirements described in SRD para 4.2.4 and Requirements

Verification and Traceability

Matrix section 4.2.4 and associated subparagraphs. The

WS3 SLEP Capability

Enhancements includes requirements for increased video management system capability, video displaying, archiving, and enhancement techniques, operator duress mitigation, and additional cameras.

However, CLIN 0015/0015AA appears to reserve this as an option and indicates if this option is exercised it shall be executed NLT 31 Dec 2016.

Will the Government clarify if the identified enhancements are to be included in the base estimate, design, development and proposal with no pending decision at a later time? Or, should the enhancements be estimated as an option in the proposal

61 Attachment 6 Site

Maps 1-3

The provided Attachment 6 site maps for Sites 1, 2, and 3 indicate both a current and future location for the LMF and RMF.

the contractor’s design concept

The minimum requirement

(threshold) is for the contractor to connect to the current LMF and RMF. A design objective is for the contractor to install connection points near future

LMF & RMF locations to simplify connecting to those future locations.

and estimates should use the current locations, future locations, or both?

62 Attachment 6 Site

Maps 4-6

The provided Attachment 6 site maps for Sites 4, 5 and 6 indicate only one location for the LMF and RMF.

there is a future location planned and if so, should the contractor’s design concept and estimates use the current locations, future locations, or both?

There is only a future

LMF/RMF location planned for some locations. If there is not a future site on the map, then the contractor does not have to account for one.

63 SOW, SRD, RVTM

The WS3 SLEP SOW states that two primary systems will be upgraded (the AC&D and the Crypto system) in order to extend the service life of the

WS3 systems. It further states the purpose of the SLEP project as “…to improve sustainability, extend the service life and ensure WS3 continues to meet

USAFE/NATO requirements”.

The current system is a totally customized system that has many aging and/or unsustainable components, which is typical for not COTS solutions at some point.

It is evident the Air Force has a strategy to provide modernization of systems to help reduce the cost and logistics of maintaining systems as stated in the SRD

Section 3.2.1 relating to the replacement of the encryption system.

SRD-3.2.1 Encryption

The present WS3

Cryptologic Subsystem provides message

The government’s position is that all “shall” statements are to remain requirements at this time. There is the potential that some of these requirements may be modified by the government as the SLEP design is matured, as the government is informed of any conflicts in requirements.

RVTM 4.1.2.6.3 refers to the

“handshake” to switch the

Primary and Redundant roles between the LMF and RMF.

Monitoring information can be sent to both systems simultaneously regardless of which location is Primary and

Redundant.

encryption capability through the custom-designed Data

Authenticator (DA), Authentication Unit

(AU), and Rekey modules. The

Cryptologic Algorithm will be eliminated as part of WS3 SLEP and replaced with a current

NSA encryption algorithm and

Commercial Off-the-

Shelf (COTS) equipment. The WS3

Cryptologic Subsystem replacement strategy aligns with the Air

Force modernization of cryptologic and key distribution and management systems.

This crypto modernization enables a totally "man out-of-the-loop" crypto key distribution system from key generation to key usage thus reducing logistics of supporting the cryptologic system.

Additionally, in the SOW section 2.1.2.1, the Air Force clearly plans to move away from a fully customized “one-of-a-kind” system towards industry standard technologies with high quality COTS components that maximize system reliability and minimize the Governments long-term maintenance cost.

SOW-2.1.2.1 The contractor shall design the SLEP to simplify the future maintainability and supportability by choosing industry standard technologies and by utilizing high quality/industrial grade

COTS components to maximize system reliability and minimize the Government’s long-term maintenance costs. The contractor shall conduct risk-based design activities for components, assemblies and processes of the SLEP design to ensure the long term reliability and maintainability of the design. (CDRL

A014 and CDRL A017)

In the RVTM, there are certain requirements that are presented as “shall” comply with functionality found in the existing customized system that was developed in the

1980s. In some cases, providing a system that meets the stated requirements verbatim does not support the desired movement to a modern, high quality, industry standard

COTS system similar to those currently used in the

DoD/DOE nuclear communities.

The Government is requested to consider the following questions:

1. Please indicate the

Governments position when stated requirements throughout the solicitation appear to be in conflict with the strategy to provide modernization, improved industry standard functionality, improved reliability and maintainability and reduced cost through

COTS solutions.

2. Would the government consider changing the requirements tied to legacy functionality in the AC&D system from “shall” to “shall provide X or equivalent” to allow for industry standard

COTS solutions? For example, (Reference RVTM 4.1.2.6.3) the requirement for the AC&D to have a dedicated hand-off of monitoring responsibility between the LMF and RMF with a handshake between the two facilities. Whereas today's

COTS have both LMF and

RMF monitoring all system events.

64 Removal of legacy equipment

The SOW para 2.1.2.12.1 states that the contractor will remove legacy AC&D components at Ramstein and at the installation sites. Do these components have to remain in operational condition?

Yes. The contractor is not responsible for ensuring/verifying the operational condition of the legacy AC&D components when removing them.

However, the contractor must take care not to damage the

AC&D components during removal so the components can be returned to the AF supply system for reuse.

65 RFP Attachment 4, DD254

The DD Form 254 in block 13 cited the Weapon Storage and

Security System (AN/FSQ-143

(V)) Classification Guide, 15

January 2007. This reference document was not part of the

RFP documents provided.

Will this guide be provided?

The WS3 Security

Classification Guide is currently undergoing a major change and will not be provided at this time. The updated guide will be provided at contract award to the awardee. All sections of the offeror’s SLEP proposal shall be Unclassified.

66 General Will we have access to the legacy VB source code? We understand the “executable” file for the current version of the WS3 Software, Message

Processor and Alarm Display

Subsystem (MPADS v3.3.1) will be provided to the contractor.

The original MPADS Software

Architecture Description and the (Visual Basic) MPADS software v3.3.1 modules will be provided via the AMRDEC dropbox. Both the software and the description document are classified DCNI.

HONEY M. SMALLS

Contracting Officer