Amend0003FedBizOppsQ A.doc

Government Responses to Questions submitted on the AT21 RFP

April 4, 2007

Q38. On page 43, section 1.2, the description refers to the ACTD’s transportation system. Can you please clarify the company/organization that designed the system?

Government Reply: Information regarding the ACTD can be found in the Bidders Library. Please see Section L-9 for the contents of the Bidders Library and instructions on obtaining a copy of the Bidders Library CD-ROM.

Q39. In the same section, the description indicates that “USTRANSCOM and USCENTCOM conducted a military utility assessment (MUA) of the ACTD’s transportation planning system.” Can you provide the contact information of the individual(s) involved in the assessment so we can get a better understanding of their assessment?

Government Reply: As identified in the MUA report listed in the Bidders Library, The MITRE Corporation conducted the independent MUA. The Government can not release specific points of contact.

Q40. What proposal volume and section should include the OCI Mitigation Plan?

Government Reply: Reference Section L-8 for Organizational Conflict of Interest. Section L-6 has been amended to include the submission of the Mitigation Plan in Volume 1 of the Offerors proposal. See Amendment 0003 for full details.

Q41. Please confirm that, in addition to the master table of contents provided in Volume I, tables of contents provided for each volume are not considered part of any page limits for those volumes.

Government Reply: The table of contents provided with each volume will not be counted against the page count for that volume. Section L-6, paragraph 2(a) has been updated. See Amendment 0003 for full details.

Q42. Reference: Section 1.5.2.2.4.2 Integrated Product Teams, Page 56, Paragraph 1. Question: Will all other staffing activities, such as Resource Management, Source Selection Committee, sustainability planning, and the scheduled ramp up and reduction of teams be considered under staffing responsibilities?

Government Reply: Yes, per paragraph 2 of Section 1.5.2.2.4.2, through the IPTs, the Government and the Contractor will make collaborative decisions that may impact staffing.

Q43. Reference: Section 1.5.1.2 Contract Work Breakdown Structure, Page 47, Paragraph 3. Question: The WBS is largely a Systems Engineering document which correlates with the IMS. It describes the technical as well as functional features to be integrated with the target System. Does this product flow from the technical IPT?

Government Reply: Yes, once the Offerors proposed CWBS is approved by the Government the Technical IPT will review and provide recommended changes to the CWBS.

Q44. Section: L Page: 112 Paragraph (f) 1

Question: The demo script seems heavily weighted not only to the functionality but also implementation services. Would it be possible to have a one-half day technology breakout to enable a deeper dive and effectively position our differentiators?

Government Reply: Additional marketing presentations will not be allowed during the demonstrations.

Q45. Section: Attachment H

Question: How would TRANSCOM like vendors to respond to the CDD? Are there specific requirements the vendor must respond to? Where in the proposal is the vendor to respond? What should be the format of the CDD response?

Government Reply: Reference Section L-6, Proposal Preparation Instructions, paragraph 5 (b), Volume 2 – Mission Capability Subfactors.

Q46. Reference PWS Attachment 8, Cost Template:

Can we add labor categories in our proposal if needed?

Government Reply: Yes, the labor categories listed are generic and should be modified to reflect the Offerors proposed labor categories.

Q47. Inclusion of the Executive Summary in each Volume simplifies and assures consistency in introductory information for all Volumes. Will the Government allow offerors to include a copy of the Executive Summary, provided in Volume 1, in all the volumes, AND not have it count against the page-limit for the page-limited Volumes?

Government Reply: A copy of the executive summary may be provided with each volume and it will not be counted against the maximum volume page count. Section L-6, paragraph 2(a) has been updated to reflect this change. See Amendment 0003 for full details.

Q48. Will the required MS Project Schedule satisfy the requirement for a CWBS in paragraph 1.5.1.2?

Government Reply: Yes, as long as a CWBS dictionary defines WBS elements.

Q49. In paragraph 1.5.2.2.2.3 Design Phase it is stated “At the conclusion of this phase, CM will validate that the developed system meets the requirements baseline and that all artifacts for this phase are complete and available for review”. Should we presume this is a joint audit conducted by our CM and the government CM?

Government Reply: Yes, the PWS has been modified to reflect this as a joint effort. See Amendment 0003 for full details.

Q50. Are there specific expectations for what constitutes direct linkage in "demonstrate direct linkage between AT21 system and the JDA"? Does this require an SV-5 relating AT21 system functions to JDA / JDDA activities, or can it be generically met by relating how the JDA /JDDA was used to help establish AT21 requirements?

Government Reply: The government has already developed OV-6 and SV-6 documentation and mapped functions to JDDA activities (included in the CDD and Bidder’s Library). The contractor will be required to develop more detailed level technical documents in accordance with PWS paragraph 1.5.2.2.3.7.

Q51. In Section L-6, Volume 6 - Mission Capability Subfactor - Demonstration, the Government indicates that demonstrations may be provided on a stand-alone vendor-provided laptop or via the Internet. In order to adequately demonstrate our methodologies, processes and IT tools, we plan to use some additional equipment beyond a laptop and internet connection. To ensure we are making appropriate preparations, we need to know: a) What are the room dimensions? b) How is the room configured with tables, chairs and other furniture? c) How many 20A (or higher) electrical circuits are available in the conference room? d) What kind (speed) of internet connection is available? e) What is the approximate number of Government representatives who will be present for the demonstration? f) We need up to 6-hours of set up time. Can we set up the day before as indicated in the draft RFP?

Government Reply: a) Minimum room size is approximately 20 feet by 28 feet.

(b) The orientation of tables and chairs is flexible.

(c) Two 20 amp 100V circuits are available.

(d) The speed of the internet connection is 3 megabits per second down, and 1 megabit per second up.

(e) Members of the Source Selection Evaluation Team will be present at the demonstrations.

(f) Offerors will be given one full day prior to the demonstration for set-up. Section L-6, paragraph 5 (f), Volume 6 – Mission Capability Subfactor – Demonstration – has been updated to provide for the demonstration set-up time. See Amendment 0003 for full details.

Q52. The Government provided labor pricing tables that included Labor Categories and a note that the "offeror shall modify individual labor categories for traceability to / audit ability of their respective accounting systems." May we replace the Government provided labor categories and provide them with our own or should we provide traceability between our labor categories and those provided by the government? It traceability is needed; we recommend that labor category descriptions be provided for the Government labor categories.

Government Reply: The labor categories listed are generic and may be modified to reflect the Offerors proposed labor categories. Traceability between the generic labor categories provided by the Government and the Offerors proposed labor categories is not required; however, the Offerors proposed labor categories should be traceable to their accounting system.

Q53. The Government provided a WBS template for pricing purposes that shows pricing only at level 2 of the WBS, but that includes work at levels 3 and below. Can offerors modify the Government WBS for levels 3 and below if we retain level 2 as is?

Government Reply: Yes, per L-6, Cost Proposal, paragraph 5 (e) (3), the Offeror shall submit a Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) proposal to the minimum level of detail contained in the template. Proposals containing greater detail are acceptable.

Q54. Has this program been identified as an ACAT Level 3 program?

Government Reply: Yes Q55. Reference Appendix H: CDD Page 52 table 8. Could you elaborate on the user requirements outlined. Is the required concurrent users for increment 1 equal to 100? What are the requirements around 500 users?

Government Reply: The AT21 CDD stipulates an Increment 1 threshold requirement of: 100 concurrent web users and 15 concurrent thick client users. The objective of: 500 concurrent web users and 30 concurrent thick client users. At a minimum, AT21 must support 100 concurrent web users to satisfy the increment 1 operational requirement (THRESHOLD). The desired {OBJECTIVE} requirement is for AT21 to support 500 concurrent web users at Increment 1 as documented in the CDD.

Q56. The Past and Present Performance Template, paragraph H, asks offerors to illustrate how our experience on the referenced program applies to each applicable subfactor in Section M. Subparagraph "e" then states: "Demonstration (Only Offerors identified in the competitive range)." Is this subparagraph to be addressed in the Past Performance Volume or only in the demonstration by those offerors downselected for the demo?

Government Reply: Offerors will not be required to illustrate how their experience applies to the subfactor – Demonstration. Since the template was provided in soft copy, an updated version will not be provided. Offerors should remove subfactor e, Demonstration from the past performance template.

Q57. Ref: Attachment 8, Labor Summary (Loaded Labor Rates & Hours)

Question: Are the labor rates and hours required on this template for the prime's labor only? If yes, are the subcontractors required to submit this template to the government as well?

Government Reply: The prime should submit one template that consolidates all labor proposed (inclusive of subs).

Q58. Reference: Section C (PWS); Page: 57; Paragraph: 1.5.2.3.2.2

Question: Can USTRANSCOM provide an overview of the training requirements that it anticipates for the AT21 program to properly evaluate, staff and price this requirement? Annual number of training events by COCOM and anticipated size for each class?

Government Reply: The required number of training events and students will be determined based on the Offerors proposed design and development schedule.

Q59. Reference: Section C (PWS); Page: 65; Paragraph: 4.8.1

Question: Does the travel identified in this paragraph include travel for Training purposes.

Government Reply: No, if travel is required for training purposes Offerors should include this in the Contractor Proposed travel CLINs.

Q60. Reference: Appendix H to Section C (PWS); Page: 16; Paragraph: 2.7.j

Question: Does USTRANSCOM anticipate that the contractor’s solution to provide USTRANSCOM customers the capability to move PAX/cargo (singly or through interface for bulk) will be required to validate financial and accounting requirements prior to optimization, validation or movement?

Government Reply: Yes. Financial considerations must be considered in the mode determination.

Q61. Reference: General Question; Page: N/A; Paragraph: N/A

Question: Does USTRANSCOM anticipate that the contractor’s solution for AT21 will replace the use of JFAST at TPFDD and other planning conferences?

Government Reply: AT21 is expected to provide new capability that does not exist today and is not intended to replace existing systems. Any future decisions to replace legacy systems would be determined by USTRANSCOM senior leadership.

Q62. Reference: Section C (PWS); Page: 64; Paragraph: 4.3

Reference: Section B; Page: 41; Paragraph: CLIN 9009

Question: The Not To Exceed date in the PWS is stated as 30 June 2017 yet in Section B, CLIN 9009, the Period of Performance is listed as 1 Aug 2016 - 31 Jul 2017. Which is correct?

Government Reply: Reference Amendment 0002 dated 23 Mar 2007. The NTE POP was corrected to read 31 July 2017.

Q63. Reference: Section J; Page: Attachment 8; Paragraph: CLIN Summary Proposal and Reference: Section B; Page: 4; Paragraph: CLIN 0006, 1006 and 2006 Question: CLIN 0006, 1006, 2006 are listed as COST in Section B but reflected as FFP in Attachment 8. Which is correct?

Government Reply: Attachment 8 was updated as part of Amendment 0002 dated 23 Mar 07.

Q64. Does USTRANSCOM currently license a JMX-compliant system administration tool that can be leveraged for use on AT21?

Government Reply: No, USTRANSCOM does not currently license a JMX compliant system administration tool.

Q65. Reference: Section C (PWS); Page: 49; Paragraph: 1.5.2.2.1

Question: The RFP lists a number of tool sets that shall leverage or interpolate with proposed solutions. No tool set for collaboration is specified. Does USTRANSCOM have a preferred collaboration tool set?

Government Reply: USTRANSCOM currently uses InfoWorkSpace for chat/whiteboard and TransViz for TPFDD visualization/collaboration. Offerors may propose existing tools and/or additional collaboration tools.

Q66. Since the Joint Booking Initiative (JBI) is not defined as a system, what does the government expect the contractors to deliver in terms of cost for schedule and performance purposes of the proposal?

Government Reply: The Joint Booking Initiative was merged into AT21 because it represents the surface execution requirements in Increment 3. Offerors should propose for the end-to-end AT21 solution. Reference CDD, figure G-2a, pages 6 – 9.

Q67. Can USTRANSCOM provide a single set of defined metrics that the government expects to use to evaluate contractor performance on the AT21 program?

Government Reply: Contractor performance will be measured in accordance with the PWS, paragraph 2, Service Delivery Summary.

Q68. Reference: Section C (PWS); Page: 57; Paragraph: 1.5.2.2.5.3

Question: Using the “Global Combat Support System – Joint (GCSS-J) authentication portal services to provide authentication and single sign on capability” will restrict users of the AT21 system to two entry nodes, since it is not a federated system at this time. Is there an option to be part of a different solution?

Government Reply: No.

Q69. For sustainment items moving within a channel, does USTRANSCOM foresee a specific requirement of the AT21 program that all TCNs are scheduled on a specific aircraft, ship, train or truck prior to movement as part of the end-to-end schedule?

Government Reply: Yes. Shipments must be allocated to the specific mission, voyage, etc..

Q70. Are all personnel identified as “key” required to reside within the local area of Scott AFB?

Government Reply: No.

Q71. What is the Mission Assurance Category (MAC) for the AT21 system?

Government Reply: MAC II for DOD Secret and Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU).

Q72. REF Sec C, Page 48, Para 1.5.1.5 Earned Value Management (EVM): We understand that EVM reporting is standard and appropriate for cost type contracts. However, our experience is that EVM reporting is not appropriate for FFP type contracts. Please confirm that EVM reporting is not required for the FFP CLINs.

Government Reply: EVM reporting is not required for the FFP CLINs.

Q73. REF Sec B, Page 2-41, Not To Exceed (NTE) amounts provided for the Government Directed Travel CLINs and the Government Directed ODC CLINs, should we include those amounts in our Total Proposed Price and delineate those amounts in the Cost Summary and CWBS Proposal worksheets included in Attachment 8 Cost Template?

Government Reply: Reference Amendment 0002 dated 23 Mar 2007. The NTE prices for Government Directed Travel and Government Directed ODC CLINs has been pre-populated on the Attachment 8, CLIN summary proposal worksheet. These amounts should be carried forward to all applicable worksheets.

Q74. Per the answer to question number 6 in the 23 March 2007 Q&A posting we are still unclear on how much vendor equipment is authorized to bring to the demo. You state “ Offerors may bring in a lap top computer”. To ensure the entire scope of AT21 will be demonstrated we estimated at least 9 laptops, and some peripheral equipment would be required to achieve a successful demonstration. May offerors bring more equipment than the one laptop you stated in your response?

Government Reply: Yes Q75. Are there a limited number of contractor personnel that can attend/participate in the demonstration?

Government Reply: Due to space constraints the Offerors will be limited to 10 representatives.

Q76. RFP, L6(f), page 110. For the In-person demo are there pre-determined agenda items other than the one hour noted to provide familiarization training for the IT tools?

Government Reply: No there are no predetermined agenda. See Section M-3, paragraph (5) (c) for the demonstration evaluation criteria.

Q77. RFP, L6(f), page 110 “Offeror will be provided additional scenario information and data to demonstrate real-time capabilities using this new information.” Will the data provided the day of the demo be in the same format as the data already provided?

Government Reply: Yes, data will be provided in the same format.

Q78. RFP, L6(f), page 110. Will scenarios provided the day of the demo require data other than what is provided or has been provided?

Government Reply: New orders provided the day of the demo may require action such as additional movement through a constrained port, more effective load consolidation on existing assets, or a replan of an existing order within the existing scenario. There will not be new scenarios given on the day of the demo.

Q79. North Africa Exercise, 5.5, page 11 indicates cost factors for commercial tenders in Northern Europe and Turkey to N. Africa. Can you define what you consider the Northern Europe and N. Africa regions?

Government Reply: North Africa is defined as those African countries with a Mediterranean coastline. Northern Europe is defined within the ICAO structure. All countries that have ICAO identifications that begin with "E" are Northern Europe; Southern Europe begins with "L".

Q80. On page 11 of the "_AT21 Transportation Demo Instructions.doc", section 4.10, there is a requirement that: " trucks must aggregate or caravan enroute to multiple pick up locations to meet minimum convoy size." The maximum size of the convoy (25 trucks) is identified in that same section, but the minimum convoy size does not appear within the document. What is this minimum convoy value?

Government Reply: The minimum convoy size is 5; the maximum convoys per day is 50.

Q81. On page 7 of the "_AT21 Transportation Demo Instructions.doc", section 4.1, the text states that: "Additionally, COCOMS must consolidate requirements to achieve “strategic minimum” cargo loads for air shipment of 100 passengers, or 15 tons of cargo. A combination of pax and cargo (e.g. 80 pax and 7 tons) may be accepted as well." Earlier in the document it was stated that we could assume that a passenger weighs 400 lbs including their gear. Since the minimum requirements for passengers would result in a 40,000 lb load and the minimum cargo load weighs 30,000 lb, what mechanism can we use to compute the minimum numbers of mixed passenger and cargo load. Do we use a simple weight metric and assume that any combination of cargo and passengers that add up to some weight; e.g. 30,000 or 40,000 lbs, can be used? In short, how do we compute the “strategic minimum” when there are a mix of cargo and passengers.

Government Reply: Use a linear interpolation to compute alternative strategic minimum loads.

Q82. When will the CO provide contractors with Government signed copies of our NDAs?

Government Reply: Any prime contractor wishing to get signed copies of the Bidders Library NDAs may submit a request to Terri Francoeur at terri.francoeur@ustranscom.mil and Michael Pardue at michael.pardue@ustranscom.mil Q83. Does the Government expect the Contract volume to contain blank Past Performance and Cost Templates in Section J, or should the templates be filled in with proposal data that is also provided in the Past Performance and Cost Volumes?

Government Reply: The templates should be completed and provided in the appropriate volumes. It is not necessary to submit blank templates with the Contract volume.

Q84. Reference Section C PWS, Paragraph 1.6.2 Contractor Deliverables and Section E Paragraph E-2. There is an inconsistency between the referenced paragraphs (copied below for your convenience). Please clarify if the contractor has (10) days as in the PWS to return updated documents or (5) days as stated in Section E.

Government Reply: All references have been updated to reflect 10 days. See Amendment 0003 for changes.

Q85. FAR 52.224-2 Privacy Act – After full review of the RFP requirements, we are unable to determine how the Privacy Act applies and hence is appropriate to this solicitation. Will AT21 contain "records" that fit the definition in Paragraph (c)(2) of this clause? If so, could you please advise where this requirement resides?

Government Reply: During the course of the contract there may be times when the contractor might encounter data that would be subject to the Privacy Act; however, the Government has not identified specific requirements to which the Privacy Act applies.

Q86. For the Tier 2/3 Help Desk support, can you provide further details regarding the responsibilities to be performed on a FFP basis? Should this CLIN include all costs associated with resolving the trouble tickets? Can you provide further clarification on the types of calls that the Tier 1 Help Desk may refer to the Tier 2/3 Help Desk? This section states that the Help Desk report will be monthly, but the Table under paragraph 1.6.2 (Contractor Deliverables), under the “Deliverable Date” column, states within 24 hours for Priority 1 problems, within 5 working days for Priority 2 PRs and with the next spiral release for Priority 3 PRs, and as negotiated with the Government for Priority 4 & 5 PRs. Is this when the PRs are expected to be resolved, or when the report is expected?

Government Reply: The Help Desk Summary Report is due monthly. Problem reports (Cat 1 – 5) are expected to be documented and resolved as defined under PWS paragraph 1.5.3.1 and 1.6.2. See Amendment 0003 for updated PWS paragraphs 1.5.3.1 and 1.6.2.

Q87. Section B; Page 41; CLIN 9009 CLIN 9009 (FFP) does not list the PWS paragraph reference. Is the correct reference PWS paragraph 1.5.3 (Interim Contractor Support)?

Government Reply: Yes, PWS paragraph 1.5.3 is also used for Post Increment 3 Support. The PWS has been updated to reflect this change. See Amendment 0003.

Q88. Section J; Page: Attachment 8; Paragraph: Cost Summary Tab Should the Labor column include labor costs for both the Development CLIN (Cost) and Interim Contractor Support CLIN (FFP)? Should the labor costs consist of unburdened direct salary cost only, since there are other column headings for Labor Overhead and G&A?

Government Reply: The labor column should include all labor costs. Cost labor should be unburdened and FFP labor should include profit/fee.

Q89. Reference: Section: Volume 5, Cost Proposal (e), Page 111 of 133; Paragraph L-6.5(e)(3) Paragraph L-6.5(e)(3) specifies that offerors must submit and include in Volume 5 a Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS). Is a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) (without pricing information) required and/or permitted to be included in either Mission Capability Subfactor volumes 2 or 3? If required or permitted, please confirm that this WBS is not part of any volume page limit.

Government Reply: No, a CBWS or WBS should not be included in Vol 2 or 3.

Q90. The government WBS was developed to capture costs at a detailed level for cost comparison purposes. In order to support the comparison of costs between bidders it will be necessary to provide a data dictionary for the WBS. The data dictionary will ensure all bidders are providing the same and appropriate cost element for the WBS. Without a data dictionary the cost elements may vary significantly and invalidate any cost comparisons conducted and potentially create a protest situation. Can the government provide the data dictionary for the WBS?

Government Reply: In accordance with PWS paragraph 1.5.1.2, the Offeror is required to provide a CWBS Dictionary.

Q91. If change management and business processing activities related to policy, procedure, implementation and training are included in the WBS. Will they be in the Prime Mission Product or in another area of the WBS?

Government Reply: Attachment 8: CWBS-Proposal tab identifies Change Management and Business Process activities under Prime Mission Product. The CWBS may be modified to define capability/product delivery in whatever manner Offerors deem most appropriate.

Q92. The requirement in L.6, 2.b. Pages, Typing, and Page Numbering requires that “Times New Roman 12 pitch font shall be used except for figures and diagrams, where small is acceptable as long as it is readable.” We interpret this to mean that the Times New Roman family of font sizes will be used on all work. Our experience has shown that the Arial family of fonts can save space compared to the Times New Roman font. We are requesting permission to use the Arial family of fonts for tables and figures only. Times New Roman font will be used in all other instances.

Government Reply: Arial fonts for tables and figures only is acceptable. Section L-6, paragraph 2 (b) has been updated. See Amendment 0003 for full details.

Q93. The Contractor Deliverables Table refers to Task Number 1.5.2.2.3.8 (Supportability Analysis, with a corresponding deliverable “Supportability Analysis” and Due Date of “TBD”. This section was contained in the Draft RFP but has been deleted from the final RFP and no corresponding paragraph 1.5.2.2.3.8 exists in the PWS. Is there a missing paragraph 1.5.2.2.3.8 for Supportability Analysis that should have been included in the PWS or is the continued inclusion of the Supportability Analysis deliverable in Section C, paragraph 1.6.2 and in Section J, Attachment 10, an oversight?

Government Reply: Paragraph 1.5.2.2.3.8 was inadvertently omitted from the RFP. The paragraph has been reinserted into the PWS. See Amendment 0003.

Q94. The RFP language in this clause states that “… the parties to this contract agree that the Contractor’s future contracting with the Government shall be restricted as outlined in FAR Subpart 9.5, Organizational Conflicts of Interest, and as provided in this clause.” Has the government Contracting Officer identified that an Organizational Conflict of Interest will exist with any ongoing, pending, or known future USTRANSCOM solicitations? If YES, will the government specify both the nature and duration of the proposed restraint, in accordance with FAR 9.507-2 -- Contract Clause?

Government Reply: No OCI issues have been identified at this time.

Q95. In what volume and paragraph should the proposal assumptions, conditions and/or RFP exceptions/deviations be located?

Government Reply: Exceptions to the RFP terms and conditions should be annotated in Volume 2, Section 3. See Amendment 0003 for full details.