Final_RFP_Q A_1.pdf

FA9451-13-R-0243

R&D For Advanced Space Superiority Technology and Engineering Requirements (RASTER)

FINAL RFP

Questions & Answers (Q&A) #1

Q1) Section L, Paragraph 4.2.5.11, Page L-14: The RFP states "The IMP shall contain brief narratives that provide the Government insight into the offeror's total work effort and for addressing how the offeror will develop, implement, and commit to the total contracted effort." In the case of an IDIQ effort, the contracted effort resides in the task orders. QUESTION: How do we include the task order key events/program milestones in the IMP, if it's only applicable to the Basic SOW per Section L, paragraph 4.2?

A1) As stated in Section L, Paragraph 4.2.5.11, “For the purposes of this evaluation, the IMP is an offeror-generated document, capturing, at a very high level, the core activities and processes necessary to implement the program… The IMP shall be a single plan for the entire effort, including associate and major subcontractor activities. The IMP described here is a top-level plan used only for evaluation purposes. A much more detailed IMP, with updates, shall be submitted after contract award as a CDRL deliverable.”

Since the Basic SOW encompasses all work associated with this contract, it is acceptable to incorporate Task Order-specific information into the IMP submitted with your company’s proposal in order to establish what the overall management approach would be; however, a detailed IMP encompassing Task Order key events/program milestones is not desired or required to be submitted with your proposal.

Q2) Section L, Paragraph 4.2.5.12, Page L-15: The RFP states "The IMS shall be written to provide a high-level, functionally integrated understanding of the proposal that provides the Government with confidence that the program is structured to be executable for the resources indicated". In the case of an IDIQ contract, the resources are planned at the Task Order level and not at the total contract level. QUESTION: How do we include the Task Order key events/program milestones in the IMS, if it's only applicable to the Basic SOW per Section L, paragraph 4.2?

A2) As stated in Section L, Paragraph 4.2.5.12, “For the purposes of this evaluation, the IMS is an offeror-generated document capturing a summary of the tasks and timing of the work effort in the IMP. The IMS shall be written to provide a high-level, functionally integrated understanding of the proposal that provides the Government with confidence that the program is structured to be executable for the resources indicated…The IMS is a brief summary schedule of major tasks… The offeror shall provide a top-level IMS as part of the proposal submittal. All major tasks and milestones in the IMS should be logically linked together showing predecessor and successor relationships. The more detailed levels of the IMS, as well as updates, will be submitted after contract award as a CDRL deliverable.”

Since the Basic SOW encompasses all work associated with this contract, it is acceptable to incorporate Task Order-specific information into the IMS submitted with your company’s proposal in order to establish what the overall management approach would be.

Q3) Section L, Paragraph 4.2.5.12, Page L-15: The RFP states "The offeror shall also provide a resource-loaded Gantt chart, for key personnel only, for all Task Order areas in the program, including separate charts for critical subcontract efforts." It is assumed that this Gantt Chart would be a product of the IMS, however, per Section L, paragraph 4.2, the IMS only applies to the Basic SOW. QUESTION: Please reconcile the inconsistencies.

A3) The resource-loaded Gantt chart will relate to/be derived from the IMS, which is developed at a high-level. The resource-loaded Gantt chart will be used to establish what the overall management approach would be.

Q4) Section L, Paragraph 4.2.5.12, Page L-15: The RFP states "The offeror shall provide resource-loaded schedules, for key personnel only, for other risk areas that are unique to its proposal based on the offeror's analysis." It is assumed that these resource loaded schedules would be a product of the IMS, however, per Section L, paragraph 4.2, the IMS only applies to the Basic SOW. QUESTION: Please reconcile the inconsistencies.

A4) The resource-loaded schedules will relate to/be derived from the IMS, which is developed at a high-level. The resource-loaded schedules will be used to establish what the overall management approach would be.

Q5) Section L, Paragraphs 2.2 and 5.2, Pages L-7 and L-17: Table 2.2 - Proposal Organization seems to imply that only one cost volume containing the three task order proposals shall be submitted. This conflicts with the direction provided in paragraph 5.2 which states the "Cost/Price volume for each task order..."

QUESTION: Do we submit three separate Cost/Price volumes for the task orders?

A5) Follow Section L, Table 2.2. Proposal Organization. This will result in offerors providing a single Cost/Price Volume which will contain separate cost proposals for each of the three initial Task Orders.

Q6) Section L, Paragraph 1.1, Page L-4: Budget/Funding Information. The funding profile starts in FY14 and ends in FY19 but the DOA in Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3, is Oct 2014 (FY15) and continues into FY20.

QUESTION: Does the government intend to provide updated budget/funding information?

A6) As stated in Section L, Paragraph 1.1, the budget/funding information was provided “for consideration in developing your proposal.” At this time, the Government does not have updated budget/funding information.

Q7) Section L. Paragraph 1.1, Page L-4: Does the identified funding profile include phase in, task order and baseline ODCs costs?

A7) Yes.

Q8) Section L, PRS-L001 ATT2, Page L-25: Paragraphs b. and c. instruct the offeror to provide MS Excel files in ".xlsx" format. However, Section L, Paragraph 5.4.8 Submission of Cost Models requires that "Data files should in .XLS file format (MS-Excel 2007 or earlier)..." QUESTION: Does the government want the Cost Models in ".xls" or ".xlsx" format?

A8) Follow PRS-L001 ATT 2. This will result in offerors providing all Excel spreadsheets in “.xlsx” format.

Q9) Section I, Section II.B, Page 26: In Paragraph (a)(1) of 5352.209-9000, Organizational Conflict of Interest (Oct 2010)(Tailored), "System" is defined as follows: "'System' means the system that is the subject of this contract." As this broad definition does not allow offerors to fully interpret the restrictions associated with this clause, can you provide suggested alternative wording for the definition of "System"?

A9) The definition of “System” provided in AFFARS 5352.209-9000, which was incorporated into the RFP, will not be changed as it reflects the Government’s intent with respect to OCI under RASTER.

Q10) Section I, Section II.B, Page 27: Clause 5352.209-9000 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCT 2010) - ALTERNATE I (OCT 2010) (TAILORED) states that the “Contractor shall prepare or assist in preparing work statements” for use in competitions to acquire services or components of the system, and that the “Contractor may not supply the services or major components relating to the system for a period of two (2) years after the completion of the contract's final task order”. This seems to imply the successful Offeror, as well as its subcontractors, will be prohibited from competing in any follow-on efforts.

QUESTION: Was this the intent of this clause, and if not, is there alternative language the Air Force would consider to clarify its intention?

A10) The Clause Alternate, as stated in the RFP, reflects the Government’s intent with respect to OCI under RASTER. The restrictions identified in the Clause Alternate apply unless the awardee “becomes the sole source, has participated in the design or development (emphasis added) work, or more than one Contractor has participated in preparing the work statement.”

In accordance with AFFARS 5352.209-9000 Organizational Conflict of Interest, ““Development” means all efforts towards solution of broadly-defined problems. This may encompass research, evaluating technical feasibility, proof of design and test, or engineering of programs not yet approved for acquisition or operation.”

Q11) The Task Orders say that analysis will be required, but there is no information provided regarding Government-Furnished software and/or modeling/simulation tools that will be made available. What will be made available?

A11) Any Government-owned software will be made available. Examples are TASAT and SVST.

Q12) Why has an expected contract value profile been included? Is this a “bid to” number?

A12) This is not meant to be a “bid-to” number, although it is indicative of the work involved so that the staffing and management plan can be reasonably bounded.

Q13) What would you envision as a day in the life of the two sites in 5 years? Would you foresee automation and/or remote operation as part of that vision?

A13) Vision: Two sites operated seamlessly with synergies and reduced operating costs, achieving our R&D mission. Automation and/or remote operation is certainly one possible option. New approaches/innovations to help accomplish the mission more efficiently and effectively, as well as obtaining process commonality, are important.

Q14) Can you provide specifics on common processes?

A14) Common processes are items like: an IMS, IMP, Systems Engineering Plan, etc. It is also likely that some hardware and software, such as Division Assets that currently exist (example: telescope mount control hardware and software), could be included in this list.