Responses_to_Questions.docx

On page L-3, paragraph 3.2 of the draft RFP, the second paragraph says that proposals may only be mailed. Question: Is hand delivery permitted?

Answer: No, proposal cannot be hand delivered.

In the summer of 2017 at the Wright Dialogue with Industry (WDI) and the Briefing for Industry (BFI) you presented a schedule for the MARS acquisition (“Procurement Status” on the MARS quad chart). Question: Do you have an updated schedule from that which was briefed at WDI and BFI?

Answer: We are currently building a new schedule due to prior schedule slips.

Page 25, paragraph (c) under 52.217.09 says “The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause shall not exceed 6 months." We think it should read "… shall not exceed 66 months.” Question: Can you please clarify?

Answer: A correction will be made to this clause to read 66 months.

Page L-4. The first note under the table says "Vol I - Capability" but in the table, Capability is the title for Vol II. Question: Could you please clarify where the executive summary should be included and what is the page limit for the executive summary?

Answer: This asterisk will be modified to reflect the correct Volume Description. The Executive Summary will be located in Volume I and will have no page limit.

Page L-6, Paragraph 6 header states "Volume II - Technical" but the table on page L-4 calls Volume II capability. Question: What is the title of Volume II?

Answer: This is a typo, Vol. 2 will be changed to Technical.

Has a new date been set yet for the MARS pre-bid conference? I need to make sure our staff meeting does not conflict with it.

Answer: The BFI has been cancelled, and no future date has been schedule.

I saw the notice on FBO regarding the industry day cancellation for the Management Assistance of Research and Science opportunity. Will the event be re-scheduled and if so will there be 1:1 sessions? My company was interesting in participating in the 1:1. Please advise. Thanks so much.

Answer: The BFI has been cancelled, and no future date has been schedule. We will entertain a 1 on 1 via in person or telecom.

Is MARS a small business set aside? Nothing in the Draft RFP or FedBizOps posting indicates explicitly whether this acquisition is anticipated to be a small business set aside or full and open, though the manner of inclusion of DFARs Supp 252.219-7000 (Advancing Small Business Growth) suggests that it is.

Answer: A determination has not been made yet if this procurement will be set-aside for a small business. We are still in the market research stage of this acquisition. Once we fully understand the market and formulated a strategy then a decision will be made whether we will solicit utilizing full and open competition or do a small business set-aside.

Suggest changing "a facility cleared" to a "facility clearance". Also suggest changing "contract award" to "completion of contract transition". Rationale: There is no requirement to have a contractor facility cleared for Top Secret, all work is at Government facilities, but the contractor needs to be able to carry TS clearances for personnel. It is not likely that a contractor will have all personnel identified when the contract is awarded, but will have them at the completion of transition.

Answer: Agreed, “facility cleared” will be changed to “facility clearance” in PWS paragraph 1.0 Note.

In the first sentence suggest changing "contract award" to "completion of contract transition". It is not likely that a contractor will have all personnel identified when the contract is awarded, but will have them at the completion of transition.

Answer: Agreed, “contract award” will be changed to “completion of contract transition” in PWS paragraph 1.2.1.

Though availability of the Program Manager (or alternate) to address issues on the contract in a timely fashion should clearly be a priority, the timeline requirements for reporting to Kirtland AFB to discuss problem areas on the contract (60 minutes during duty day, 2 hours off duty) are very stringent and effectively dictate that the contractor's PM for the effort must be able to suspend ongoing activity with effectively no notice. For an A&AS contract that provides primarily strategic-planning type support, it seems that a slightly longer timeframe or a requirement to initially be available via phone might be more appropriate.

Answer: Agreed, we will change paragraph 4.2.1 to read that the PM or alternate must be available via phone within the stated timelines, and/or change to read that the PM or alternate must be available in-person on Kirtland AFB within 24 hours.

Will offerors be required to bid to the exact amount of CME provided in the CME Estimate (Attachment 5) to be considered compliant? If so, at what level? For example, is the requirement for 18.3 CME total, or must the proposal provide 5.75 CME for PWS 1.1, 5.15 CME for PWS 1.2, etc? Rationale: Given the requirements provided, it appears the workforce proposed will be based on multiple part-time personnel to cover the skill mix.

Answer: The intent of the draft RFP is to have the market place provide feedback based on the criteria put forth in the draft RFP. The draft RFP did request offerors to bid the skill mix provided in the CME estimate. However, based on feedback received, the Government may not incorporate this strategy in a finial RFP.

Remove Vol II from list to match first sentence.

Answer: Agreed, this will be removed from Section L page 5, paragraph 4.10 to avoid any confusion.

"This question is linked to item (5) above. Is it the Government's intent that it will be completely at the discretion of the offeror to determine/bid the labor mix to be employed, or will any further delineation of the estimated CME by labor category/level be provided with the RFP? Since relatively detailed CME estimates have been generated by constituent parts of the organization, there are likely skill mix assumptions behind those estimates that are very difficult to discern for a non-incumbent offeror. This puts non-incumbents, who might otherwise be competitive, at a distinct disadvantage and make the Government's technical and cost evaluations difficult to perform in a consistent/fair manner."

Answer: The draft RFP did request the offeror’s to bid the skill mix, however based on feedback the Government will reconsider this strategy.

"Organizational Conflict of Interest clauses preclude the contractor for the life of the system from award of a DoD contract to supply the system or any of its major components, and from acting as a subcontractor or consultant to a DoD supplier for the system or any of its major components. Is the Government willing to accept and consider OCI Mitigation Plans that could address this concern while not precluding fuuture work? Would this restriction include systems and major components in applications beyond the activities of AFRL RD & RV directorates? Rationale: The range of future systems that may come under the purview of the contract's systems engineering and/or technical direction is potentially quite large. Exclusion from all future work related to this contract's activities may unduly restrict competition since the extent of potential future work that would be excluded for OCI reasons is not known. This may be especially true for small businesses.

Answer: The Air Force OCI clause is tailorable. We added the strictest OCI clause for Offerors awareness and to provide comments for when we decide to tailor the clause to make it more business friendly and maximize competition to the fullest extent. An OCI mitigation plan will be submitted as part of the proposal, but not as an evaluable item.