SMART_DRAFT_RFP_Questions.docx

FA9453-15-R-0003 SMART

DRAFT RFP Questions/Comments and Responses

1. If this is a request to consider a review the draft RFP, is the intent to issue an RFP to review the draft and comment under resulting contract?

· This draft RFP was to provide industry advance notice of an upcoming requirement and request industry feedback on the documents to ensure the final RFP is of the highest quality. The Air Force intends to issue an RFP for the services described in the Performance Work Statement.

2. If not, is the intent to issue an RFP for services that are competitive with UTC?

· This requirement is a follow-on to FA9453-09-D-0360 AFRL RV/RD Professional Services. The Air Force intends to issue a full and open RFP for the services described in the Performance Work Statement.

3. PWS paragraphs 4.10 (Phase-in Plans) and 4.10.1 (Contractor Transition), and Section L, paragraph 4.2.1.1 (Phase-in) indicate that the subjects do not apply to the incumbent. However, the Evaluation Criteria indicate that phase-in/transition activities will be a factor in selecting the winning offeror. If the incumbent is not required to address Phase-in as part of its proposal, it will have an unfair advantage in that it will have fewer requirements to address within the specified page limits.

· Per Section L, Table 2.2, transition plans are 2 pages for each task (single-spaced). This is in excess of the 25 technical/risk page limit and does not count towards the 25-page limit.

4. Also, to the extent phase-in and transition costs are considered as part of the Most Probable Cost, the incumbent will have an unfair advantage in that it will not have costs that are required of all other competitors.

· Per Section M002 paragraph d, “Cost proposals will be evaluated by individual Task Order for the base year and two 1-year options, less phase-in and baselined ODC costs, and then combined into a total evaluated price (TEP).” However, this information was not included in Section L. The phrase “The 30-day transition plan will not be included in the total evaluated price” will be incorporated into the final RFP.

5. Because it has so few pages, is it permissible to combine Volume I with another volume in the same three-ring binder?

· Yes. This will be clarified in the final RFP.

6. Does the statement “Volumes II, III, & V shall be included on a single CD-R/DVD-R” mean that you want one CD for each volume, or all three volume contained together on a single CD?

· We want all three volumes together on a single CD. This will be clarified in the final RFP.

7. Table 2.2, Volume III asks for "...1 relevant (contract) for each teaming member performing at least 15% (see ITO paragraph 5.1 and 5.2)". However, in Paragraph 5.2 (page L-14) it says "Also include information on a maximum (3) recent contracts performed in the last five (5) years by each of your teaming partners and significant subcontractors that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort." Is it correct to conclude that the government considers "significant subcontractors" to be those that are proposed at 15% of the total effort and that the government wants at least 1 but no more than 3 relevant contracts for these subcontractors?

· “Significant subcontractors” are those that are proposed at 15% of the total effort. Additionally, the Government wants at least 1, but no more than 3, relevant contracts for those subcontractors. This will be clarified in the final RFP.

8. Reference table L-2: There appear to be two math errors in the table. First, on task 0002, the table indicates that the total estimated CME is 15.3 however, the sum of the effort for the three years is 18.3 (or 6.1 per year) not 15.3 (or 5.1 per year). Which is correct? Second, the table indicates that the total for the entire effort over the three years is 31.88 CMEs. This is the correct total for each year but the total for the entire effort is 95.64 CMEs. Is that correct?

· The sums in the draft RFP were incorrect; those above (18.3, 95.64) are correct. The table will be updated to include the correct numbers in the final RFP.

9. Reference Paragraph 6.4 and table L-2. Paragraph 6.4 indicates that the table is for "guidance/ informational purposes only." Are we free to propose a different distribution of work between the labor categories on each task and a different distribution between the tasks as long as the total for the three years is equal to 95.64 CMEs?

· The offeror is allowed the flexibility to propose a different distribution as they see fit. 95.64 CMEs is the Government estimate, and offerors may deviate from this estimate provided the proposal contains detailed rationale and justification for the variation.

10. In Section G, G007 Invoice and Payment - Cost Reimbursement - Alternate (page 12 of 23) the COR is identified as Mr. Eric Lindom but the contact information is robert.lue@us.af.mi, (505)846-5546. Can you confirm the COR and contact information are correct?

· The COR information should read: “Mr. Robert (Bobby) Lue and can be reached at robert.lue@us.af.mil, (505) 846-5546”

11. In Section G, G007 Invoice and Payment - Cost Reimbursement - Alternate (page 12 of 23) (a) requires the vouchers be submitted to the COR for approval prior to WAWFing the voucher, then in (b), the contractor is required to submit the vouchers quarterly to the COR. Is this quarterly submission truly necessary since the COR already receives the information on a monthly basis?

· Quarterly submission is not necessary. G007 will be updated in the final RFP.

12. Page L-21 of 22, 7.0 Volume V - Contract Documentation: the second sentence states "Provide an all-inclusive list (one list) that includes all labor categories and unloaded/ unburdened base salary of each labor category that will be used for the nine initial task orders." Should that read ". . . used for the three initial task orders."?

· Yes, this should read “for the three initial task orders.” This will be corrected in the Final RFP.

13. What decision modeling capabilities and tools currently are used to unite leadership in the continued development of this program, and have these models been integrated with the Integrated Defense Acquisition and Logistics Life Cycle Management System?

· AFRL RV/RD does not currently employ any decision-making tools at a corporate level. At this point, we rely on subject matter experts to provide advice to our leadership. In addition, we are a pre-acquisition research organization and as such have not fully participated in the Integrated Defense Acquisition and Logistics Life Cycle Management System.

14. Do you envision the winning vendor to utilize existing decision modeling systems (tools) or are you looking for personnel and other management support systems?

· Please review the Performance Work Statement for the type of services we require.

15. You state that secret clearances are sufficient for this work. Are there expectations that significantly greater security clearances will be required during the project’s execution.

· The FBO posting stated that there are security requirements for this effort. The final RFP will contain draft DD 254s to inform offerors of the security clearances required.

16. Are you looking for more advanced quantitative risk management analytic products to aid the assessment of risk portion of this work?

· Please review the Performance Work Statement for the type of services we require.

17. What system(s) has been used to define and prioritize this potential project? Have the Integrated Defense Acquisition and Logistics Life Cycle Management System disciplines already been applied?

· AFRL RV/RD does not currently employ any of these types of systems/tools at a corporate level. At this point, we rely on subject matter experts to provide advice to our leadership. In addition, we are a pre-acquisition research organization and as such have not fully participated in the Integrated Defense Acquisition and Logistics Life Cycle Management System.

18. Have a return-on-investment analysis and tools been developed to prioritize and measure the value of current and future project alternatives?

· AFRL RV/RD does not currently employ any of these types of systems/tools at a corporate level. At this point, we rely on subject matter experts to provide advice to our leadership. In addition, we are a pre-acquisition research organization and as such have not fully participated in the Integrated Defense Acquisition and Logistics Life Cycle Management System.

19. Is there a current Strategic Review or other strategic planning/futures document of AFRL R&D that defines the range of interests for the space warfare program, and can it be made available during the solicitation period?

· There are strategic planning documents, but they cannot be made publically available.

20. Can the Government please prove a historical perspective on the numbers and types of staff that are actively working tasks along with the types of tasks the current staff is working? For example, are there 4 Principal Engineers/Scientists and 3 Engineer/Scientists working Directed Energy programs or 2 Senior Engineer/Scientists and 4 Business Developers working Space Vehicle programs?

· The numbers and types of staff listed in the Draft RFP are a Government estimate based on historical and future requirements. Historically, the aggregate average of the support has been 25% within the Directed Energy Directorate and 75% within the Space Vehicles Directorate. However, this effort is dynamic and staffing levels/types could change yearly depending on budgetary and technical requirements.

21. How many tasks are typically running concurrently? Can we expect more than the initial 3?

· At this point, we anticipate award of the three initial task orders. This may change depending on budgetary and technical needs.

22. Have subcontracting goals been established?

· As stated in paragraph 7.3.4.1 of Section L, “It is highly desired that the subcontracting plan meet the goals established by the DOD Office of Small Business Programs (http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/statistics/sbProgramGoals.shtml).”

23. In order to make the playing field equal for all potential offerors, what are the specific requirements of the principal engineer/scientist, senior engineer/scientist, engineer/scientist, business developer, program manager, and organizational development consultant, i.e., what work are these positions currently performing. Also, does it matter what type of engineer or scientist you require, i.e., aerospace, electrical, design, astro, etcetera? What are the specific technical requirements for these positions?

· Please reference the labor category definitions in the Performance Work Statement (paragraph 1.2.4) and Section L (paragraph 6.4). This effort relies heavily on subject matter experts within the directed energy and space fields.

24. PWS Paragraph 1.2.1 states that "Key Personnel" are all personnel except for the PM and strictly administrative personnel. Also, Table 2.2 in Section L requires a resume for all key personnel and Table L-2 contains the historical CMEs for this effort. Are offerors required to provide resumes for each of the CME listed in Table L-2? If not, can the Government provide specific information or numbers of resumes they expect to see in the offerors responses?

· The CMEs listed in Section L, Table L-2 are a Government Estimate of labor hours and are provided for reference in order to assist in proposal preparation. Offerors are not required to use the labor categories listed, but must provide a cross-reference matrix of the offeror’s labor categories compared to the Government’s labor categories. Offerors are required to provide resumes for all personnel except for the PM and strictly administrative personnel.

25. SF 33, Block 9. Will the Government respond to Q’s? Block 9 notes that “no” questions will be answered. However, FBO synopsis notes 5 January 2015 due date for draft RFP questions.

· Block 9 was an administrative oversight from a previous version of this requirement. We apologize for the confusion.

26. Section B, CLIN 0004. The first sentence reads “and the other necessary to accomplish”; are there words missing in this first CLIN 004 sentence?

· The sentence should read “and anything else necessary…” This will be corrected in the Final RFP.

27. Section B, B040. In (3) it notes, “Contracting Officer reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the proposed work.” This happens when Contractor cannot complete TO. Is there another A&AS contract utilized to back-up SMART performance?

· This is the only contract supporting the SMART requirement.

28. Can non-incumbent bidders assume the current contractor will be in place to support transition?

· Yes.

29. Will the incumbent’s transition / phase out plan be provided to support phase in plan construction by potential selection of non-incumbent.

· It is up to the individual offerors to discuss transition plans with the incumbent.

30. Periods shows 30-days phase in. Would new team have access to incumbent names/resumes?

· It is up to the individual offerors to discuss transition plans with the incumbent.

31. Who will decide, and when, if invoices shall be submitted on an every two week or monthly in arrears basis?

· Invoice submission is at the discretion of the contractor. Quarterly submission is not necessary. G007 will be updated in the final RFP.

32. It is unclear if the Government requires the proposal to include a separately identified Deputy Program Manager. Should a Deputy Program Manager be proposed for the contract, for each TO, or both?

· There is no requirement for a deputy program manager, but an offeror is not precluded from proposing such a position.

33. Please clarify, should a Small Business Subcontracting Plan required for each task?

· Small Business Subcontracting Plans are required IAW FAR 19.7 and FAR 52.219-9. Per FAR 52.19-9(i), a contract may have no more than one subcontracting plan. If a small business subcontracting plan is required, a plan will be incorporated into the basic IDIQ and subcontracting goals will be incorporated into each task order.

34. Section I, FAR 52.244-02. There are “??????” referenced in Para (d) and Para (i). Recommend the information be updated or removed if not applicable.

· These fill-ins may be applicable, depending on the awarded proposal.

35. CDRL 0003, Management Plan. In Blocks 11, 12, and 13 it states that the Management Plan is due 30 calendar days after award. However in PWS it states to include it with proposal submittal. Please state which is correct?

· The Management Plan is required after contract award. The PWS states that “The contractor shall provide a Program Management Plan for the contract/TO as specified in CDRL A002, and shall adhere to the Program Management Plan throughout the life of the contract/TO.”

36. PWS 1.2.4. Can the PM position be staffed by one of the identified senior key personnel? If not, is the PM a billable position?

· It is up to each offeror to decide how to staff this requirement. Either of the above-stated situations are adequate. In addition, offerors are not limited to the above-stated situations.

37. PWS 1.3.1. Page 5 second to last line "establish" should be "established."

· PWS Paragraph 3.1.3 will be corrected in the final RFP to read: “The contractor shall deliver each report identified in the CDRL(s) according to the schedule established in the contract/TO. The contractor will be evaluated relative to adherence to the schedules set forth in the CDRL(s).”

38. PWS 3.1.3. Is there a page limit to the Program Management (PM) Plan? Note: PM Plan to include Management Plan, Problem Identification & Resolution and Feedback Process to the COR.

· There is no page limit.

39. PWS 3.1.4. Page 6 fifth line from bottom of page "… as defined "by" Air Force Policy Directive …"

· PWS paragraph 3.1.4 will be corrected in the final RFP to read: “All contractor personnel performing services for RD and RV on-site/on-base are required to participate in the RD/RV OPSEC Program, and comply with Operations Security (OPSEC) protection for all sensitive/critical information as defined by Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 10-1101.

40. PWS 4.1.4. It states DoD Information Assurance (IA) training must be conducted for all contractor employees prior to any granted access to information system. Does Government conduct this training? No costs to Contractor? The other trainings reference Government.

· This is a Government-provided Computer-Based training. The PWS states: “DoD IA training is located on Advanced Distributed Learning System (ADLS) accessible via the AF Portal. A publically accessible version of the DoD IA training is located on the Information Assurance Support Environment (IASE) website (http://iase.disa.mil/eta/Pages/product-download.aspx).”

41. PWS 4.2.4. Contractor Man-year Equivalent Accounting. Is there a break down for each directorate and contract man-year support?

· At this point in time, the historical support for each directorate has been distributed approximately 25% for RD and 75% for RV. However, this percentage can shift significantly at any point in time, based on funding and technical needs of the Air Force Research Laboratory. Offerors need to be able to accommodate these shifts.

42. PWS 4.6. Hours of Operation notes occasional instances of unusual working hours, such as extended day (beyond 8 hours). Over and Above can be applied to this Task Order correct?

· This requirement is to be acquired on the basis of the number of hours to be provided, rather than on the task to be performed. Over and Above does not apply to this contract since it does not provide overhaul, maintenance, or repair services IAW DFARS 217.77. The draft RFP should have included FAR 52.37-10, Identification of Uncompensated Overtime. See FAR 37.115 for more information. This provision will be included in the final RFP.

43. PWS 4.10. What is the difference between the terms Phase In Plan and Transition Plan if any in the two terms used? Page 74 appears to consider both terms as one plan a Phase In plan, is this correct?

· “Phase-In” and “Transition” are used interchangeably. All instances of “Phase-In” have been changed to “Transition” to prevent further confusion.

44. PWS 4.11. Will the government provide a sample monthly status report that includes “all activities to the TO level”?

· The Government will not provide any sample reports. As long as the report contains all of the information required by the PWS and CDRL, contractor format is acceptable.

45. PWS 4.12. Base Support 2A. Is the intention of the government to provide the laptop and blackberry as either or but not both?

· The Government intends to provide any and all (within reason) equipment necessary to accomplish the tasks.

46. PWS 4.12. Please clarify. The following two sentences appear to conflict: "Computers and peripheral equipment will not be signed over to the contractor as Government Furnished Equipment. Hand receipts (AF IMT 1297) will be used to track the assignment of such equipment, and location and condition will be verified through periodic audits."

· The items are considered Government-Supplied, not Government-Furnished. Hand receipts (AF IMT 1297) are signed by each user and are used as a tracking tool – i.e. the users (contractor personnel), not the contractor (as a business unit), are responsible for the condition and location of the equipment.

47. Section L, PRS L001. “The Basic IDIQ value will encompass the initial Task Orders 0001 through 0003 (to include the value of any option) and any task orders that may be issued during the life of the IDIQ up to $37,600,000.00. The Government is not obligated to reach the IDIQ contract value (ceiling).” Should we consider $37.6M an NTE for the total of the three sample tasks over the full PoP?

· $37M is the Government Estimate for this effort. This does not preclude offerors from proposing a different amount based on the PWS. Cost variations must be fully supported.

48. Section L, 2.2 Table 2.2. Regarding Volume II, is the “2 pages for each task” referring to individual phase-in plans for each task?

· Yes

49. Section L, 2.2.1. Request allowance for smaller font size for tables and figures (recommend 8 point).

· For ease of evaluation, all tables and figures must comply with the stated guidelines in the RFP.

50. Section L, Table 2.2. Will there be a requirement to certify/validate the authenticity of the unnamed resumes?

· By including resumes in the proposal, an offeror is certifying its authenticity. The Government is relying on the integrity of all offerors.

51. Section L, Table 2.2. Are the key personnel those described on page 3 of the PWS? If so, do you require 4 resumes or 10?

· All technical personnel are considered key personnel and resumes are required for each individual. The number of required resumes depends on the staffing level proposed by the offeror.

52. Section L, Table 2.2. See 4.0 where there are three tasks noted in Appendix A; Is the expectation to have a maximum of 25 pages per task?

· Yes, Table 2.2 states “25 pages for each task (single-spaced).”

53. Section L, Table 2.2. See 4.2.3.2 and note that only the Phase In Plan is called out not the Transition Plan; Is this correct and is the expectation that the plan is 2 pages as a maximum? Or are the expectation then 27 pages for each task?

· “Phase-In” and “Transition” are used interchangeably. All instances of “Phase-In” have been changed to “Transition” to prevent further confusion. Per Section L, Table 2.2, transition plans are 2 pages for each task (single-spaced). This is in excess of the 25 technical/risk page limit.

54. Section L, 2.5. Does this requirement apply to all team members or just to the prime contractor?

· Yes, this flows down to all team members.

55. Section L, 4.2.1. Is the title for Task Order 0001, “Strategic Technology Planning” or “Technology and Organizational Strategic Planning”?

· The title should be “Technology and Organizational Strategic Planning.” This will be corrected in the final RFP.

56. Section L, 4.2.3.2. Will the government provide the number and skills/labor categories/ and un- named resumes of the current incumbent personnel?

· The Government has no intention of providing this information. It is up to the offeror to identify and propose qualified individuals.

57. Section L, 6.2. Assume the Prime Offerors cost proposal should only contain summary level price information for their subcontractors, and any detailed price information should be contained in the subcontractors cost proposals?

· The Prime can provide summary level pricing information since the subcontractors are required to submit fully disclosed proposals to the Government (see Section L 6.5.1). However, the Prime is still required to submit detailed results of cost or price analysis for each proposed subcontractor and provide support data used in the analysis IAW FAR 15.505-3.

58. Section L, 6.4 Table L-2. The Lower Left Hand Total should be 92.64 not 31.88

· The total should be 95.64. This was an inadvertent error and will be corrected in the final RFP.

59. Section L, 6.4. Government Labor Estimates. States Table L-2 is provided for guidance/info only; yet page 76 6.1.1 states table L-2 is the current staffing. Is Table l-2 the current staffing and does the current staffing meet the requirements of Tasks 001-003 defined in this draft RFP? Also note the numbers for totals in the Table do not appear to add correctly.

· The table is a government estimate based on historical and future requirements. Paragraph 6.1.1 will be edited to read: “It provides the government labor estimate and other data, to include job categories and job taskings of each labor position, from the current contract.”

60. Section L, 6.4. Government Labor Estimates. Note the PM position appears to be .35 CME yet requirements expect the PM to report to the COR within 60 minutes of notification during a regular eight hour day and within 120 minutes during after regular hours. See pages 34-35 4.2.1. How did the government determine the .35 CME with this availability requirement and the TO progress reporting requirements?

· The table is a government estimate based on historical and future requirements.

61. Section L, 6.5.7. What do the ODC amounts represent?

· The ODCs represent any other direct costs necessary to support the dynamic requirements of this effort. Typically, this cost consists of travel and conference fees, but may include other items such as materials. This will be added to Section L of the final RFP for clarification.

62. Section L, 6.5.7. Will the government provide the breakdown of the ODC’s described in Table L-3?

· The ODCs represent any other direct costs necessary to support the dynamic requirements of this effort. Typically, this cost consists of travel and conference fees, but may include other items such as materials. As stated in Section L, ODCs are baselined by the Government. As such, they reimbursed on a cost basis.

63. Section L, 6.5.8. Does the phrase "Electronically encoded" mean that offerors should password protect the electronic submission of any cost/pricing data?

· “Electronically encoded” means that the formulas must be used and must be accessible in the Excel document. This will be added to Section L of the final RFP for clarification.

64. Section L, 7.3.4.1. Note the Sub Contract Plan is expected to be an attachment to the RFP, is this a correct assumption?

· Per paragraph 7.3.4 “the offeror shall provide the following as attachments to the RFP.” The subcontracting plan is included in this list. The word “RFP” will be changed to “offer” to prevent further confusion.

65. Section M, PRS-M002. It doesn't appear that the Risk Matrix for each of the Tasks is going to evaluated, please confirm and if the Risk Matrix will be evaluated, please describe how it will be evaluated

· Per paragraph b: The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

66. What other critical area(s) of concern does the government suggest interested parties review and understand pertaining to the SMART requirement and/or the Request for Proposal?

· The Government suggests that all interested parties review clause AF 5352.209-9000 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCT 2010) – BASIC AND ALTERNATE I, II, III, IV, and VI (OCT 2010) located in the draft and final RFP.