ABS Pre-proposal Conference QA 21 Apr 10.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 29 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Airborne Sensor Program (ABS)
- Solicitation number
- HQ0147-09-R-0006
- Issued by
-
DOD Missile Defense Agency
About this file
Questions and Answers from the Pre-Proposal conference.
View the file
Other files
Show all 41
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Doc/Ref | Question | Response | ||
| 1 | Section A , SOW, and Section L | The award date is not defined in Section A, SOW, or Section L. Since the award date drives elements of proposal planning, serves as the basis of the IMS, and provides a framework for the cost effort, would the Government provide an award date for planning and costing purposes? | The contract start date has been changed to 1 Oct 2010. This will be added to the DD1707 and Section L, Proposal Instructions, paragraph 1.3.1. | |
| 2 | Section A, CLIN 009 (p 7) | If proposing the HALO effort, use $13M. If CLINs are $3M annually, and the basic Period of Performance is 5 years, the total is $15M. Which is correct: $13M or $15M? | Proposals should use the amounts listed in the CLIN descriptions. | |
| 3 | Section A, CLIN 0010 (p 7) | If proposing the HALO effort, use $85M. If CLINs are 16, 16, 16, 17, and 17M annually, the total is $82M. Which is correct: $82M or $85M? | Proposals should use the amounts listed in the CLIN descriptions. | |
| 4 | Section A, CLIN 0010 (p 7) | This Not to Exceed CLIN will be used to reimburse the contractor for all the materials, including, fuel, used in support of, and associated with, the attached Statement of Work. The NTE CLIN for material and fuel supporting the ABS program is based on $16M per year for the HALO aircraft and $9M per year for the WASP. Would the Government provide more detail for the estimated allocation of material dollars based on previous history (for example, how much is estimated for aircraft parts & repairs, fuel, mission equipment & repairs, engine overhauls & parts, supplies & services, spares, support equipment, etc.)? | ||
| No, Offerors are directed to use the amounts listed in the CLIN descriptions for proposal purposes. No bill of materials is required to be submitted. | ||||
| 5 | SOW (p 3) | The ABS Program Office directs the design, development, integration, test, operation, sustainment, improvements and modernization, mission support and mission data reduction/analysis activities of the ABS Program for the Missile Defense Agency. Would the Government provide an organization chart for the ABS Program Office, so bidders have a better understanding of the overall MDA structure? | MDA Organizational charts are for internal use only, and therefore are not for public release. | |
| 6 | SOW 3.3.5 (p 11) | The Contractor shall provide an integrated maintenance plan with all scheduled inspections and maintenance for each aircraft and support systems. Does the Government want the maintenance plan included in CDRL A010, or as a separate plan for Government review and approval? | A reference will be added to SOW 3.3.5 clarifying that the maintenance plan will be submitted under CDRL A028, Technical Data Package. | |
| 7 | SOW 4.2.1 .f (p 17) | Facilities located CONUS (minimum requirements include: tarmac for storage of non-active A/C, environmentally controlled facilities for the storage and maintnenace of instruments (sensor packages), and suitable hangar space to support ABS aircraft operation and sustainment and mission preparation activities);+B2 What environment must the sensor packages be stored or maintained in? Are the optics exposed in a way that requires control of humidity, temperature, or particulate contamination? | The sensor systems contain exposed optics. Environmental storage requirements are those typical of infrared and electro-optical systems with exposed optics. | |
| 8 | Mission Support Sample Task (p 6) | Airborne Sensors: The interceptor should be tracked from launch to interception… It appears the interceptor e-file does not match the specifications outlined in the Mission Support Sample Task. Can MDA confirm they have provided the correct interceptor e-file? | The interceptor e-file is correct. The blue water chart in Attachment 2 conceptually shows the mission but does not accurately show the interceptor trajectory. The coordinates for the interceptor and target along with the keep-out zone are contained in attch 2 of appendix A. | |
| 9 | Mission Support Sample Task (p 6) | 2nd paragraph: The unitary target vehicle is a low technology liquid rocket. During boost phase the plume will dominate the target signature… Following completion of burn and at end of boost phase the unitary target will maintain a nominal overall temperature of ≈320 K. While the task refers to the target vehicle's second-stage burnout altitude, no other information on the target type is offered except its low technology and liquid fuel. Is the target a two-stage missile? | Yes, the target is a 2-stage missile | |
| 10 | Mission Support Sample Task (p 7) | HALO-I Requirements What is the normal Field of Regard (FoR) for HALO-I, and what flexibility does the contractor have to change the FoR for the sample task? | Field of Regard (FoR) information is contained in the Technical Data Package (TDP) titled Test Support Position (TSP) Selection (A19DM0020-01) as well as other documents within the Bidders Library. Offeror needs to propose any changes to the FoR of any sensor and provide rationale in their response to the Mission Support Sample Task. | |
| 11 | Mission Support Sample Task (p 9) | 2nd paragraph: The chosen filter rotation is detailed in Figure 2-2. While Figure 2-2 is referenced, there is no such figure. Is the correct reference actually Table 2-2? | Yes, the correct reference is Table 2.2. | |
| 12 | Mission Support Sample Task Table 2-2 (p 10) and Appendix B (p 15) | MWIR Track Imager FOV = 0.21 deg MWIR Acq Imager FOV = 2.5 deg The FOV specification+C19s between the acquisition and track cameras shown in the tables in Appendix B appear to be reversed. Would you please confirm this and any other specifications in the table that may be in error? | The tables in Attachment 2, Mission Support Sample Task Appendix B, 2. HALO-II / WASP are mislabeled. The labels on the two tables are reversed. The first table should be labeled "Tracking Subsystem Configuration" and the second table should be labeled "Acquisition Subsystem Configuration." All other information is accurate. | |
| 13 | Section L 1.13 (p 6) | All typing, including that on charts and graphs, shall be no smaller than what is equivalent to Microsoft Word, Times New Roman, 11 pitch, uncompressed font. Would MDA condsider a font size of Arial 8 for graphics and figures, and Times New Roman 10 for tables? | No, proposals shall be submitted as required by Section L. | |
| 14 | Section L 3.1.5 (p 11) | The Offeror shall develop a Mission Support Plan (MSP) and Basis of Estimates (BOEs) for all resources required for HALO-I and HALO-II and/or the WASP to best meet the test objectives provided in the Mission Support Sample Task. How are the BOEs for sample tasks to be scored? | BOEs support the technical evaluation of the proposed Mission Support Plan and Technical Development Plan. They are used to help evaluate proposal risk associated with the plans. The proposals will not be scored, they will be evaluated per Sections L and M. | |
| 15 | Section L 3.1.5 (p 11) | The Offeror shall develop a Mission Support Plan (MSP) and Basis of Estimates (BOEs) for all resources required for HALO-I and HALO-II and/or the WASP to best meet the test objectives provided in the Mission Support Sample Task. Is the sample task a real-world MDA scenario or a fictious scenario to level the playing field? If real, are there Government standard policies, procedures, and data that would be released to all bidders? | The Mission Support Sample Task is a realistic MDA scenario but is not based on a real mission. Samples are used for a best value evaluation. Section J attachments and the Bidder's Library documents should be used as needed. | |
| 16 | Section L 3.3.2 (p 12) | Technical Development Sample Task Data necessary to derive a complete solution for the sample technology task may only be readily available to the incumbent, since they have the history with the aircraft and data collected during missions. Does MDA provide this data, or can bidders make assumptions for the missing data and state the assumptions? | Offerors should make assumptions as needed and document assumptions in the Technical Development Plan. | |
| 17 | Section L 3.3.2 (p 12) | Technical Development Sample Task What is the long-term vision for operational deployment of missile defense systems, and where does ABS fit into that strategy? | This question is not applicable to this RFP. | |
| 18 | Section L 3.3.2 (p 12) | Technical Development Sample Task Are there any sensor systems that have been procured by ABS, but not yet implemented? | No. Please refer to the GFE listing. | |
| 19 | Section L 3.3.2 (p 12) | Technical Development Sample Task Does MDA have any planned upgrades to the ABS sensor systems or aircraft? If so, what are the estimated timelines? | This question is not applicable to this RFP. | |
| 20 | Section L 3.3.2 (p 12) | Technical Development Sample Task What is the highest level of classification required for this project (Top Secret, SCI, SAP, etc.)? | For purposes of the Technical Development Sample Task the highest level of classification required is Secret. Sec L, 3.3.2 has been updated. | |
| 21 | Section L, 3.3.2 (p 12) | Paragraph 2: Offeror shall provide a comprehensive development plan and BOEs for all resources required to respond to the following development scenario. For the Technical Development Sample Task, are there minimum resolution requirements for the compressed 30Hz downlink video, such as MISP5.4, MISM-L4, or similar? | It is up to the bidder to determine technical details, such as minimum compression, as part of their proposed solution to the sample task. | |
| 22 | Section L 3.3.2 (p 13) | Sensor: Better than 70 mrad absolute in North-East-Up or equivalent coordinates 100 Hz update rate. Since microradians are a measure of angle and NEU coordinates are Cartesian coordinates, not angular coordinates, would the Government clarify this increased capability requirement? | The coordinate system reference is intended to indicate that the 70urad requirement is in the local reference frame of the aircraft. | |
| 23 | Section L 4.1.3 (p 14) | The Offeror shall provide a discussion of the Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) and dictionary, which reflects the Offeror’s understanding of the contract effort. The CWBS shall serve as the framework for organizing the ABS effort to include in-house, inter-divisional, subcontractor, and associate contractor activities. An associate contractor is normally defined as a prime contractor with the Government doing related ABS work. Although the establishment of an associate contractor relationship is required, associate contractors have not been named. Would the Government consider naming associate contractors and their contracted tasks for proposal planning purposes? | There are currently no associate contractors identified for this contract. However, they may be required in the future. | |
| 24 | Section L 4.2 (p 15) | The Offeror shall propose an approach for providing a smooth and efficient transfer of responsibility for on-going projects and activities during the designated phase-in period. Transition requirements vary depending on whether one or more missions are scheduled. Would MDA provide a 12-month look-ahead demonstration/test schedule? | An Integrated Master Test Plan (IMTP) briefing was added to the Bidders Library and includes a high level schedule. Please note that the Airborne Laser Program has been changed to the Airborne Laser Test Bed and now falls under the Director for Technology, MDA/DV. With this change, its test requirements are no longer included in the IMTP. Offerors need to recognize the fluid nature of MDA's test schedule and propose a transition plan that addresses how an Offeror plans to accommodate various requirements at various levels of activity. | |
| 25 | Section L 5.1-4 (p 17) and 5.1.6 (p 18) | 5.4-4. Consent Letters executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information... 5.1.6 …the Government requires that a Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form for the Release of Past Performance Information be completed by each key subcontractor and/or subsidiary identified in the proposal. The two references seem to conflict. Are consent letters required from all subs or just key subcontractors? | Consent letters are required from all subcontractors, teaming partners, etc, who are named in the proposal, and who, therefore, will contribute to the overall past performance rating of the Offeror. | |
| 26 | Section M 6.3(c).2 (p 6) | Offeror demonstrates the ability to develop and use innovative sensor integration techniques to enhance the ABS program. Since there is no sensor integration in the sample technology task, how does MDA plan to evaluate innovative sensor integration techniques? | The focus of this sample task is the integration of multiple sensors on multiple platforms to support improved real-time pointing knowledge and provide the data via SATCOM links as described in Sec L. The focus is not the integration of a new sensor on a platform. Evaluation will be accomplished per Section M. | |
| 27 | Section M 6.3(c).3 (p 6) | Offeror demonstrates technical competence in the area of Electro/Optical and infrared technology. Since the sample task allows no opportunity to demonstrate competence in the areas of Electro/Optical and infrared technology, how does MDA plan to evaluate the threshhold requirement ? | Technical competence in the area of Electro/Optical and infrared technology is required to appropriately use data from various systems to support the objectives of the Technical Development Sample Task, and will be evaluated per Section M. | |
| 28 | Section M 6.3(c).4 (p 6) | Offeror demonstrates the ability to the use the Mission Assurance processes proposed in the tailored MAP. Is it MDA's intent for offerors to prepare a full MAIP for the sample task based on MDA Assurance provisions? | No, it is not MDA's intent for Offeror's to prepare a full MAIP for the Technical Development Sample Task. The Techical Development Plan should be consistent with the proposed tailoring of the MAP and the implementation of the eight areas addressed in Section L, Paragraph 3.2.1. | |
| 29 | Organizational Conflicts of Interest | The file name lists this section as Attachment 15, but it is referred to inside the document as Attachment 14. Is the Government planning to reissue a corrected version? | MDA is unable to replicate this error. No corrected version will be issued. | |
| 30 | Organizational Conflicts of Interest (p 1) | Key OCI principles have been promulgated in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 9.5 and have been enforced by protest decisions of the Government Accountability Office and the Court of Federal Claims. MDA's policy, dated Jul 27 2009, Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI), as provided with the RFP, clearly delineates the OCI mitigation policy for contractors providing advisory and assistance services. However, it seems less clear in light of FAR 9.505-1(b) when considering the development of test requirements and evaluating test data. In light of FAR 9.505-1(b), systems engineering, what specific OCI limitations is MDA levying on the ABS solicitation/program in this regard? | In accordance with FAR 9-505-1(b), any contractor that is involved in system engineering for the ABS effort will not be in a position to make decisions favororing its own products or capabilities. | |
| 31 | Mission Support Pricing Instructions | The file name lists this section as Attchment 16, but it is referred to inside the document as Attachment 15. Is the Government planning to reissue a corrected version? | MDA is unable to replicate this error. No corrected version will be issued. | |
| 32 | Mission Support Pricing Instructions | For each scenario outlined in Section 3, the Offeror shall provide pricing for the following tasks and reporting requirements in accordance with the ABS SOW. The table defines a period of performance that spans 11 fiscal years, and the instructions require BOE documentation to support the pricing. This contract is for a base year and option years. | ||
| Would the Government identify the base year and the option years in the table? | See #1 above. Offeror's proposals shall reflect the applicable Offeror Fiscal Year. | |||
| 33 | ABS WASP RFP Section 1.1, Volume III – Past Performance | The RFP requires the submittal of the Past Performance Information Sheets on 4 May 2010. Is it acceptable to also submit the entire Past Performance Volume (i.e. Volume III) with the Past Performance Information Sheets on 4 May? | Yes. | |
| 34 | ABS WASP RFP CDRLs – A003 IMS, A029 Award Fee Plan, and A029 List of Compliance and Reference Documents | There are currently no requirements listed in Section L or M requiring a response to CDRL A003 IMS, A029 Award Fee Plan, and A029 List of Compliance and Reference Documents. Therefore, we assume that these CDRL documents will only be required after Contract Award. Are these CDRL assumptions correct? | No, this assumption is not correct. Attachment 10, Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) requires the A003 IMS, A029 Award Fee Plan, and A029 List of Compliance and Reference Documents be submitted with the proposal. Sec L, para 1.1 and 4.0 have been updated to be more specific. Sec L, para 4.0 specifies which CDRLs are to be attached to Volume II and that the Volume II attachments will not be counted in the page count. | |
| 35 | Attachment 2 – Mission Support Sample Task (2 Feb 10), Mission Planning Task section | This section of the Mission Support Sample Task states that “This should include an ASCII text file of these points and include the raceway and entry and exit plans.” Should the ASCII text files be an attachment to Volume I and not part of the page count? | Yes, the ASCII text file should be an attachment to Volume I and will not be counted in the page count. Sec L, para 3.1.5 has been updated to be more specific. This file should also be included on the Volume I CD-ROM per Sec L, para 1.1. | |
| 36 | Section B, CLIN X010 | Since the contractor’s role in procuring spares and repairables, as well as managing parts obsolescence issues, prepositioning spares and minimizing delivery times directly impact performance and mission assurance, recommend that MDA provide subCLINs under CLINs X001 through X0004 for material, exclusive of fuel. | The following will be added to the CLIN X010 extended description: "Material includes assemblies, componenets, parts, raw and processed materials, and small tools and supplies that may be consumed in normal use in the performance of the contract. Material does not include labor." SubCLINs under the O&S CLINs will not be added. | |
| 37 | Section B | It is our understanding that the costs associated with C-Checks and/or Gulfstream 72-month inspections are to be included in the O&S CLINs. Please confirm. | Yes, these inspections should be included in the O&S CLINs with the exception of Material and Travel. Material and Travel are separate CLINs. | |
| 38 | Format of proposal volumes (and any resulting responses to Evaluations Notices (ENs)). | Since the combined WASP and HALO proposal will require additional pages to comprehensively respond to the Combined ABS requirements and to address the MDA risk concerns with this proposal, recommend that the page count limitation be changed to 150 pages for the technical volume and 90 pages for the management volume. Please confirm. | The recommended change to the page count for the Combined ABS proposal (single proposal for entire ABS effort) will be made. This will increase the page count of the Technical Volume from 120 pages to 150 pages and the Management Volume from 80 pages to 90 pages. All other page count limits remain unchanged. | |
| 39 | 1.0 Program Structure and Objectives, 1.3 Proposal Instructions | 1.3.1 Offerors are not required to submit a proposal for each effort; however, Offerors are invited to submit a proposal for the HALO effort, the WASP effort, and the total ABS effort, or any combination of the three. Each proposal shall be a separate and discretely priced proposal for each effort. Page limits and all other proposal preparation instructions in this RFP apply to each separate proposal. Offerors are advised that the Government considers there to be significant risk (i.e., technical expertise for both platforms) associated with awarding one contract for the entire ABS effort. Offerors must clearly substantiate their assessment of proposal risk for their proposed approach for each Technical and Management proposal for the HALO effort, the WASP effort, and the total ABS effort, or any combination of the three. If an Offeror has an alternative offering that satisfies all the technical requirements of the RFP and is more advantageous to the Government, would MDA be receptive to receiving alternative proposals in accordance with FAR 15.209 (a)(2)? | Alternate proposals will not be considered or evaluated. | |
| 40 | 1.0 Program Structure and Objectives, 1.3 Proposal Instructions | Section 1.13 states that “no cost data will be included in the technical material . . . for purposes of evaluation, BOEs will not be considered cost data”. Please clarify that MDA intends that cost details be removed on the Sample Task BOEs prepared in accordance with Section L6.8.6 and submitted in the Technical Volume. | That is correct. BOEs submitted with the Technical Volume need not include cost details. BOEs submitted with the Cost/Price Volume are to include cost/price information. | |
| 41 | 1.0 Program Structure and Objectives, 1.5 | If an Offeror is preparing a proposal for the WASP and also chooses to prepare a proposal for the combined ABS program, is it acceptable for the Offeror’s combined ABS proposal to include cross references to the Offeror’s WASP proposal? Further, would MDA consider the technical and management content cross-referenced in the Offeror’s WASP proposal in their evaluation of the offeror’s combined ABS proposal? | No, MDA will not consider cross-referenced information between proposals. Each proposal must be complete and self-sufficient. | |
| 42 | L6.7.2 Target Cost | There is a conflict between guidance in L 6.7.2 stipulating ten (10) data collects per aircraft per year (total of 400 missions) and attachment 15 paragraph 2 indicating specific data collection missions per aircraft, per GFY (total of 267 missions). Please clarify what should be the basis for the bid. | There is not a conflict between the assumption provided in both Section L, Paragraph 6.7.2 and SOW, Paragraph 3.3 and instructions provided in Attachment 15, Mission Support Pricing Instructions. The given assumption of ten data collects per aircraft per year provides a common Mission Support level of activity to be used in developing the proposal. The Mission Support Pricing Instructions provide pricing instructions that are specific to Mission Support and is based on the MDA Integrated Master Test Plan. The Offeror's approach for O&S should be able to support increases in mission support activity over what is included in the Mission Support Pricing Instructions. | |
| 43 | 6.7.6 Quarterly Expenditure Profile | It is our understanding that a separate worksheet is required for each and every CWBS over the 10 year period of performance. This will generate a voluminous cost volume submittal. Recommend the requirement be clarified to permit the Offeror to only submit a separate worksheet for each CLIN over the 10 year period of performance. | Section L, 6.7.6 will be changed to state: "Offerors shall submit separate spreadsheet information to provide anticipated quarterly cost expenditures for each CLIN for the total contract." | |
| 44 | 3.3 Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability | The failure data on each of the sensor systems (PSS, Alpha, Beta, Gamma Plume Emulator and Laser) is essential to the assessment of risks associated with the Combined ABS program. Therefore, request that MDA provide this data. | Two files have been added to the Bidders Library in a folder titled "Reliability Data" to address this request. | |
| 45 | SOW, Figure 1, Page 4 | The interceptor trajectory files provided in the Technical Data Package are inconsistent with the Interceptor trajectory that is displayed in the referenced Figure 1 on page 4. Can MDA please resolve this inconsistency? | The interceptor e-file is correct. The blue water chart in Attachment 2 conceptually shows the mission but does not accurately show the interceptor trajectory. The coordinates for the interceptor and target along with the keep-out zone are contained in attch 2 of appendix A. | |
| 46 | Halos DVD Disk 1 | The following items of technical data are missing from the Technical Data Package documents received to date from MDA. Request that MDA provide the additional Technical Data Package documents. A42PM9001, and all reference documents; A42PM9006, and all reference documents; A06PM9005, and all reference documents; A06DP0009, and all reference documents; A06DP0049, and all reference documents; A06RM0043, and all reference documents; Updated TDP #16; Complete ADT TDP including all relevant drawings, operations, and maintenance manuals. Examples of missing documents: A55DM0000 ADT Top Drawing; A55PM9001, and all reference documents; A55PM9006, and all reference documents; A55DH0086, and all reference documents; A55DH0092, and all reference documents; A55DH0093, and all reference documents; A55DH0095, and all reference documents; A55DH0099, and all reference documents; A55DH0103, and all reference documents; A55DM0036, and all reference documents; A55DM0125A, and all reference documents; A55DM0124A, and all reference documents; A55PM0075 ADT, and all reference documents; and Memo 08121903, Laser Test Operational Procedures | These documents have been added to the Bidders Library (04162010 Update). | |
| 47 | B, CLIN X010 | CLIN description states it is for material in support of the attached statement of work. The content of material can vary from offeror to offeror. For example, offeror A may outsource some maintenance activity and collect the cost as material while offeror B may complete maintenance activity with its own personnel. How will the government reconcile material content between offerors? | The amounts listed in the CLIN X010 description are correct. Offerors shall use those amounts in their proposal(s). Material content is not required to be submitted with the proposal. Offerors should ensure that all labor effort, prime and sub, is reflected in the applicable O&S, Mission or I&M CLIN. The following will be added to the CLIN X010 extended description: "Material includes assemblies, componenets, parts, raw and processed materials, and small tools and supplies that may be consumed in normal use in the performance of the contract. Material does not include labor." | |
| 48 | CLIN X011 | CLIN 0011 description states that CLIN is to be Not Separately Priced. However, Section B CLIN is requesting cost and fee information consistent with an Award Fee CLIN. Please clarify if CLIN is NSP or to be priced as an Award Fee CLIN | CLIN X011, CDRLs, is Not Separately Priced. Extraneous information in Section B has been deleted. | |
| 49 | SOW 3.3.1 | SOW Para. 3.3.1 states maintain mission availability “…..100% of the time” and there are numerous references to scheduled and planned/scheduled maintenance throughout the SOW. However, unscheduled maintenance actions will occur that cannot be predicted per the aircraft maintenance plans. Shall the Contractor provide for unscheduled maintenance activity in the proposal? | Yes, unscheduled maintenance or repair should be addressed in the proposal. | |
| 50 | L, 52.216-1, 1.0, M, 3.0, 4.0 | We understand from Section M how the HALO stand-alone, WASP stand-alone and Combined proposals will be evaluated to determine the best value for each of those proposals. However, it is unclear how the Government intends to make the best value decision between a dual contract award (HALO stand-alone and WASP stand alone) and a single contract award (Combined proposal). For instance, will the government provide “combined” Factor and Subfactor ratings for the HALO stand-alone and WASP stand-alone to compare to the Factor and Subfactor ratings for the Combined proposal? If so, how will those “combined” factor ratings for the stand-alone proposals be determined? | The Government will not combine the factor/subfactor ratings of any proposals. The SSA will make the source selection decision based on the scenario that will provide the Government with the best value. | |
| 51 | L, 1.1, 1.1.2 | PPIS are due two weeks before the proposals are due, as specified in Section L. Can the PPIS be submitted electronically, via email, to the designated Contracting Officer? | No. PPIS shall be submitted as required in Section L, para 1.12. | |
| 52 | L, 1.1.3 | The proposal instructions state that text must be Times New Roman 11 uncompressed font. In some graphics an image of a screen shot is desirable in order to show how computer systems are part of a process or communications architecture. In other cases, a scanned image of an existing document is an effective way to present documents for which the text may not be changed. Can images of computer screen shots or scanned images of documents be used in graphics, with smaller than TNR 11 point font? | If the text is intended to be evaluated, it should meet the instructions in Section L. Screen shots, photos, etc. that contain text smaller than TNR 11 point font are allowed but if it is intended to be evaluated it will need to be highlighted in a caption or the main body of the proposal in the proper size text. | |
| 53 | L, 1.1.3 | Section L states that “Attachment 4, Past Performance Information Sheets, and Charts, Tables and Figures, may be provided single spaced.” For ease of reading, may the captions which accompany the Charts or Figures also be single spaced? | Yes. | |
| 54 | L, 1.3.2 L, 6.3 | MDA has provided a pre-determined value for program material. Does MDA expect offerors to provide / cost their expected program material use? If not, how does MDA plan to evaluate total program cost where one offeror may, by having a better operating strategy, require less material than another offeror? | Offerors are not expected to provide/cost expected program material use. Total program cost will be evaluated using the numbers provided in the CLIN descriptions. | |
| 55 | L, 1.3.2 L, 6.3 | MDA has provided a pre-determined value for program travel. Does MDA expect offerors to provide / cost their expected program travel? Does MDA consider employee travel back and forth from a home office (in another city) to the WASP or HALO operating location to be allowable travel reimbursed by the travel CLIN? | Offerors are directed to use the amounts listed in the CLIN descriptions for proposal purposes. All travel shall be in accordance with the Joint Travel Regulations. | |
| 56 | L, 1.3.2 L, 6.3 | What does MDA consider allowable material that can be charged to the material CLIN? For example, can the following items be charged to the material CLIN – subcontract cost, facility cost, facility repair cost, facility maintenance cost, etc) | See # 36 above. | |
| 57 | L, 4.1.1 | Key Personnel resumes are an attachment to the proposal, which are to be completed in the format defined in Section L. Can these resumes use single line spacing? | Yes. Sec L, para 4.1.1 was undated to state that single line spacing can be used in the resumes. | |
| 58 | L, 6.3, Attach 15 | Reference: Section L states “The Mission Support CLINs (X005 through X008) shall be priced in accordance with the Mission Support Pricing Instructions. The Mission Support Pricing Instructions identify four different scenarios. Question: Does MDA want the bidders to provide pricing per the Mission Support Pricing Table or do bidders assume the scenarios are to be summed together in order to give a total price for each CLIN? | Offerors should provide cost/price information, BOEs, etc, for FY 11 scenario(s) only. For the remaining Fiscal Years, Offerors shall propose an escalation rate, which will then be applied to the price of the FY 11 scenario(s), in order to calculate total CLIN prices. | |
| 59 | L 6.3, M, 9.4, Attach 15 | Can the government specifically identify which CLINs will be used to calculate the Total Evaluated Probable Cost? Will the government use CLINs from all options in the evaluated price? If the evaluated cost will include Mission Support cost, what price will the government use (Scenario A, Scenario B, Scenario C, Scenario D, total of all scenarios, or the mission support sample task)? If the evaluated cost will include Technology Development, will the government use the Technology Development sample task or the government budgetary estimates? | All CLINs including the cost reimburseable CLINs will be used in calculating the Total Evaluated Probable Cost. See Section M, paragraph 9.4. will be corrected to add cost reimburseable CLINs. | |
| 60 | Attach 2 | The mission sample task states: this should include an ASCII text file of these points..... Is a separate ASCII text file expected as an attachment to the proposal? If so how does this file affect page count? | Yes, the ASCII text file should be an attachment to Volume I and will not be counted in the page count. Sec L, para 3.1.5 has been updated to be more specific. This file should also be included on the Volume I CD-ROM per Sec L, para 1.1. | |
| 61 | Attach 10 | The CDRL lists several data items and non-CDRL plans that are to be submitted with the proposal, and that they are to be in Contractor format. We assume these specific data items or non-CDRL plans are to be included as attachments to the management volume, and that they are not included in the page count limitations. Is this correct? | Yes, that is correct. Also see #34 above. | |
| 62 | Attach 15 | Reference: Attachment 15, Mission Support Pricing Instructions, identify four different scenarios (A, B, C, D) Question: Are offerors to total aircraft together to provide a total scenario cost for all aircraft/platforms? | No. Please see # 58 above. | |
| 63 | Attach 15 | Mission Support Pricing Instructions provide the total number of missions to price by Fiscal Years, but request that price be totaled by CLIN. Since FY’15 crosses boundaries between contract years (thus CLINS), please clarify how many FY ’15 missions will occur by platform by scenario type in Contract year 5 and 6. The same question applies to Fiscal years ’16 – ’20 and Contract Years 6-10. | The contract start date has been changed to 1 Oct 2010 which aligns the contract year with the Government fiscal year. See #1 above. | |
| 64 | CLIN X010 | Are small business subcontracting threshold requirements based upon assumptions of subcontractors to support the annual $16M NTE? | No, small business subcontracting should consider all proposed work efforts included in the Offeror's proposal and is not limited to CLIN X010. | |
| 65 | SB Subcontracting | We know how to factor subcontractors as teammates, but we need a better by year historical record of spares to assist in better estimating our small business goals. | Maintenance records for each aircraft/system have been provided in the Bidder's Library. | |
| 66 | CLIN 0012 | In the event MDA awards separate contracts for the WASP and HALOs, how will future task orders for I&M/Technology Development be contracted for? E.g., does MDA envision that future Technology Development task orders could be competed between the two successful Offerors? | Future task orders will not be competed between two successful offerors if two awards are made. Task orders will be awarded consistent with the scope of each contract. If both contractors are required to perform some future work, Associate Contractor Agreements may be required. | |
| 67 | For planning purposes, the RFP stated that the contract period of performance would start 1 July 2010. In the pre-proposal conference briefing, the estimated award date was late September. Please confirm July date. | See #1 above. | ||
| 68 | SOW 3.4 states that "the Contractor shall not develop any new software variants… or develop any new software without Government approval". Section L, para 4.4 asks "Offeror to describe ability to provide appropriate facilities for… software development." Please confirm that software development may be performed on this program or is only software maintenance envisioned? | The primary focus is software maintenance but some software development may be required by I&M and Technology Development task orders. All new software requires Government approval. | ||
| 69 | The answers to the DRFP questions indicated a program start date of July 1. The pre-proposal conference indicates an award date of Sep 2010. For proposal pricing, should Offerors assume a start date of Oct 1, 2010 for pricing purposes? | See question #1 above. | ||
| 70 | Will the Government consider adding a Program Management (PM)/Systems Engineering (SE) CLIN? Execution of legacy contracts that support multiple products (i.e. WASP, HALO, Missions, etc.) suggest that a dedicated O&S CLIN for PM/SE will streamline cost reporting and performance measurement for this activity. | No, a separate PM/SE CLIN will not be added. | ||
| 71 | Pre-proposal conference slides instructs offerors to define plans for establishing working relationships with the incumbent contractor for transitioning their products to the new contract. Shall the offerors assume that the incumbent contractors' effort be performed under their legacy contract. | Yes, the incumbent contractors' support for transition is included in the scope of the current contracts. | ||
| 72 | Are we to assume the EOS sensor stands alone using a 4th window/station or do we assume we can integrate it into either the alpha/beta/gamma platforms? In the sample task, the EOS sensor is shown as a required asset aboard HALO-I, but no information is provided regarding sensitivity, FOV, FOR, IFOV. | The EOS Imager has been removed from Table 2-1, HALO-I Required Sensors. | ||
| 73 | CLIN X010 | How does the Government define material? E.g., some companies' accounting practices may allow them to treat subcontractor labor as material. Does the Government expect all material, including material that may be purchased by lower-tier subcontractors, to be included in CLIN X010 on a Cost Reimbursable basis? | See question #36 above. | |
| 74 | Would the Government consider incentivizing Offerors to control the cost of spare parts and replacement parts by including these items in the CPIF CLINs? | The Government will not include spare and/or replacement parts in the CPIF CLINs. |
Airborne Sensors Pre-Proposal Conference, 7 April 2010. Answers contained herein are preliminary. Once MDA staffing is complete, answers will be posted to FBO.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
HQ0147-09-R-0006, 21 APR 10
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .