GovernmentResponsestoQuestionssubmittedontheAT21RFP_2.doc

Government Responses to Questions submitted on the AT21 RFP

March 23, 2007

Q5. To facilitate review/decomposition of the CDD contents, would the Government please provide offerors with the Excel files(s) and .pdf files comprising the two icons on page A-48 AND a word file version of the CDD and its components?

Government Reply: The excel and .pdf files comprising the two icons on page A-48 have been uploaded to FedBizOpps. A word file version of the CDD will not be provided.

Q6. What equipment (computers, displays, monitors, projectors, etc.) may be brought to the demonstration?

Government Reply: Offerors may bring in a lap top computer.

Q7. What equipment (computers, displays, monitors, projectors, etc.) will be provided by the government at the site of the demonstration?

Government Reply: Demonstration Room Equipment: dual screen, overhead projectors (1024 X 768 pixels, 5,000 lumens; 770,000 colors) driven from 2 Dell Optiplex GX240 computers running current versions of Windows XP with CD/DVD readers. The computers have 512 Mb RAM and two 80 Gb hard drives each. One runs at 2.4 GHz, the other at 2.6 GHz. Internet access via Charter cable (10 Mb down; 1 Mb up). Projection connection to an Offeror’s computer is available through the monitor output on the back of the computer.

Q8. The CLIN Summary worksheet is structured using the CLIN structure from the Draft RFP. Would USTRANSCOM please provide a revised worksheet? Government Reply: The Cost Template has been updated. See Amendment 0002 for the updated cost template.

Q9. Ref: Attachment7, Bidders Demonstration document, page 1 of 4; second paragraph Quotes: a) “…In a limited number of cases determining which supply source an item should come from will be tested…"b) “…For items of supply sourced from within the theater, Offerors will demonstrate consideration of second level re-supply automatically (appropriate requests for replacing theater stocks as they’re used will be produced)..." Our interpretations of these two sentences are that a) refers to showing Order Fulfillment capabilities, and b) refers to Order Replenishment capabilities. Question: Given that the scope of the AT21 program does not appear to extend into the inventory management areas of the supply chain, we ask for clarification of what is expected for both the demo and the AT21 program. Are our interpretations of sentences a) and b) above correct? a) If so, is the intent for AT21 to provide functionality that would select the source of supply (e.g., depots, unit level supply activities, direct vendor delivery, etc.) for outgoing requisitions? b) Is it the functionality of AT21 to provide order replenishment capabilities -- that is the automatic replenishment of inventory due to stock reductions (e.g., issues, shipments, etc)? c) If these functionalities are not part of what AT21 is to provide, do you still expect to see them demonstrated or proposed in the solution?

Government Reply: The Government expects to be able to "source" items on inventory to fill demands. AT21 will notify the inventory planning processes when stocks are being drawn so appropriate planning can take place. However, AT21 will not perform inventory planning (sourcing from vendors to stock).

Q10. The CWBS-Proposal worksheet lists ECOs under WBS 1.12 and WBS 2.5.8. Does the acronym ECO stand for Engineering Change Order? It is not listed in the acronym list.

Government Reply: ECO does stand for Engineering Change Order. The Cost Template has been updated. See Amendment 0002 for the updated cost template.

Q11. In the CWBS-Proposal worksheet WBS #2.0 Sustainment Phase, the next level of WBS jumps to 2.5.1. Are there WBS elements for 2.1 through 2.4 or should the WBS from row 106 to 119 be renumbered?

Government Reply: WBS elements 2.1 through 2.4 are reserved for Government costs.

Q12. The POP start date in Section B CLINs starts 8/1/07. On page 64, Section 4.3 lists the POP as not to exceed 30 June 2017. Is the correct not to exceed date 31 July 2017 based on CLIN 9009 Post Increment 3 Support?

Government Reply: PWS paragraph 4.3, Period of Performance should read: The Period of Performance is undefined. The Not To Exceed date is 31 July 2017. Correction has been made in Amendment 0002.

Q13. Section B CLINs list the Award Fee CLINs as FFP. Please clarify classification of Award Fee as Firm Fixed Price?

Government Reply: The Award Fee CLIN is established to allow for billing and payment of the amount of award fee earned as unilaterally determined by the Government Award Fee Determining Official (FDO). A modification will be issued to establish the firm fixed price amount for the award fee earned for each award fee period. See the Award Fee Plan for full details.

Q14. RFP, Page 104, Para L-5, (3) of Proposal Submission Requirements. This paragraph states that the “Proposal Volume 6 shall be submitted by the time specified in the competitive range determination letter”. On Page 109, Para L-6, 5, (f) of Proposal Preparation Instructions it states the Offerors will be given “not more than 28 days, from the date of the competitive range notification”, to prepare the demonstration Volume and the real-time demonstration. a) Does this mean that Volume 6 may be required to be submitted before the demonstration date? b) 28 days is a maximum time we may be required to demo, is there a minimum time after competitive range notification in which we may be required to demo?

Government Reply: Offerors will be given no more than 28 Calendar days to submit their proposal demonstration volume. The demonstrations will be scheduled by the Government using random selection and would not be scheduled prior to the receipt of the demonstration volume.

Q15. RFP, Page 84, Para H-4, 5 Key Personnel Question: This paragraph asks us to identify personnel with integration, change management, and system test expertise. Is it correct to assume the following: a) you want these individuals identified by name, b) they can be identified in a table that also shows they have the required qualifications, and c) we would provide generic resumes that would match their skills and don’t need resumes per individual (confusion is caused by Page 126 of the RFP, Para M-3, c, (2), (b), of Mission Capability. Sub para iv, which also mentions the need to identify the integration, change management, and system test personnel referenced above, could be interpreted that per name resumes would be required. We assume, based on Para H-4 that per individual resumes for the personnel with integration, change management, and system test expertise is not required)

Government Reply: For further clarifications: a) Individuals with integration, change management and system test expertise do not need to be identified by name. b) They may be identified in a table that shows they have the required qualifications; and c) generic resumes are acceptable.

Q16. “Cost Summary” tab row 14 identifies data as “Total Proposed Price” but does not include column for Award Fee – is it the intent for this spreadsheet to contain “Cost” data only by year and category exclusive of award fee? If so, should data be identified as “Total Proposed Cost” instead of “Price”? Or do you want a column added for Award Fee?

Government Reply: The Cost Template has been updated to include a column for award fee. See Amendment 0002 for the updated cost template.

Q17. “Labor Summary” tab row 85 asks for Profit (Firm Fixed Price Labor Only) but has been blacked out, and then row 87 asks for Grand Total (including fee). Should a row be added for Award Fee if the Grand Total is to be inclusive of Fee?

Government Reply: Award Fee will only be paid on development and prototyping (if exercised) CLINs. Award fee does not apply to the firm fixed price CLINs.

Q18. “Travel” tab indicates the contractor should provide the estimated price for both Govt directed and non-Govt directed travel; however, Section B of the RFP already specifies NTE amounts for the Govt-directed travel for CLINS 0006, 1006, 2006, etc. Should the contractor only be providing estimates for non-Govt directed travel?

Government Reply: The Cost Template has been updated to remove references to Government directed travel. Not to exceed prices have been set for these CLINs. See Amendment 0002 for the updated cost template.

Q19. Reference Section L-6, Page 111, Paragraph 5(d)(2) This paragraph states, "A minimum of one and a maximum of 3 past or present contract(s) for the prime contractor and each subcontractor shall be summarized here. The past performance should be relevant to the team member's role, and be in ratio with the team members' responsibility - based on percentage of contract value. The Offeror shall provide no more than ten examples of past performance unless necessary to meet the minimum example requirement." This paragraph states, "A minimum of one and a maximum of 3 past or present contract(s) for the prime contractor and each subcontractor shall be summarized here. The past performance should be relevant to the team member's role, and be in ratio with the team members' responsibility - based on percentage of contract value. The Offeror shall provide no more than ten examples of past performance unless necessary to meet the minimum example requirement." In keeping with USTRANSCOM's emphasis on teaming and on our subcontractor goals, we assembled a team of more than ten companies. Some of these small firms were selected for their niche qualifications and will have a very small role in this effort. Providing a reference for every subcontractor will limit the major participants to one reference each, which does not provide the range of references we believe USTRANSCOM is seeking for major AT21 participants. Question #1: Do we have to provide a reference for every subcontractor regardless of the scope of their role, or can we omit those firms with limited participation and provide more references for our major AT21 participants? Question #2: If USTRANSCOM requires an example from each subcontractor regardless of the extent of their role, can the major team members still submit more than one reference, even though such submission will exceed the maximum of ten?

Government Reply: The minimum and maximum number of examples per prime contractor and each subcontractor has been removed; however, the maximum of 10 past performance per Offeror remains. See Amendment 0002 for full details.

Q20. The column headers on the CWBS - Proposal tab reflect FY entries. Shouldn't this column header reflect CY entries to coincide with the contract years?

Government Reply: The Cost Template has been updated to reflect CY. See Amendment 0002 for the updated cost template.

Q21. Is it mandatory to submit a past performance reference for all Team members? The language in RFP, Section M-2(b) uses conflicting language in stating “should” in one sentence and “shall” in the next. Please clarify. For reference, Paragraph M-2(b) is cited with the words in question highlighted. “Past performance should be provided for the prime and each subcontractor, be relevant to the team member’s role, and be in ratio with the team member’ responsibility – based on percentage of contract value. The Offeror shall provide a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of three (3) examples of past or present performance for the prime and each subcontractor. The Offeror shall provide no more than ten examples of past performance unless necessary to meet the minimum requirement.” The first sentence says “should be provided for prime and each subcontractor” while second sentence says “shall provide a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of three (3) examples of past or present performance for the prime and each subcontractor.”

Government Reply: The minimum and maximum number of examples per prime contractor and each subcontractor has been removed; however, the maximum of 10 past performance per Offeror remains. See Amendment 0002 for full details.

Q22. Reference RFP Section L Page 111, Paragraph (d) (3). Question regarding how to address instances where a Government-generated Past Performance Questionnaire is unavailable for an Offeror’s subcontractor due to their role as subcontractor on the applicable contract. In this case, request the Government modify the instructions to allow the Questionnaire to be completed by the Prime Contractor for the applicable contract.

Government Reply: In accordance with Section L-6, Proposal Preparation Instructions, paragraph 5(d) past performance can be completed on prior or current Government and commercial contracts the Offeror considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. In the case you are describing the Offeror should reference their commercial contract and have the Questionnaire completed by their applicable contact.

Q23. Amendment 0001 Block 14 states that Section L is hereby replaced in its entirety. Please confirm that the original RFP Section L contents following L-10 (pages 114 – 123) are deleted in their entirety.

Government Reply: Amendment 0001 replaced Section L-1 through L-10. These sections began on page 106 - 114. The clause section of Section L was not replaced. See Amendment 0002 for clarification.

Q24. Reference: Section 1.5.2.2.4.1 Integrated Product Teams, Page 56 , Paragraph 1. Question: The task reads that the CE will work closely with the CSE. Will the CE exclusively work for the CSE or work with both the CSE and PM?

Government Reply: The CE will work with the PM and other members of the Government team, as well as the CSE.

Q25. Reference: Section 1.5.2.2.4.2 Integrated Product Teams, Page 56 , Paragraph 3. Question: The task reads that the Government Technical Manager or the Government-appointed CSE will lead the technical IPT and that this IPT presides over technical development activities that are typically guided by the systems engineering plan. Does this IPT replace the SE IPT?

Government Reply: The Technical IPT will perform the same functions as an SE IPT.

Q26. Reference: Section 1.5.2.2.4.2 Integrated Product Teams, Page 56, Paragraph 3. Question: The SE IPT integrates the products of the target system, such as system capabilities, requirements, design considerations, test schedules and measures, Joint integration, and integration with other program management control efforts by coordinating the SE Process and various organizational interfaces. Will the Technical IPT be the coordinating body accomplishing this effort? The Staffing requirements would indicate this.

Government Reply: That is correct.

Q27. Reference: Section 1.5.2.2.4.2 Integrated Product Teams, Page 56, Paragraph 3 & 4. Question: The AT21 Industry Day Slide Show 31 Oct 2006 shows the following arrangement of teams. The description of the DOP IPT indicates that it is the Process owner and arbiter of functional requirements, Joint integration, etc. The target system is integrated and configured with products from this IPT as well as contract system integrators. There will also be important collaboration from a design point of view. Typically, this function is part of the SE Process and has a seat on the SEIPT. Also, Paragraph 3 does not indicate that the DOP IPT has a seat on the Technical IPT. Will the DOP IPT have a seat on the Technical IPT?

Government Reply: The chairpersons of each IPT, or their designees, have seats on the other IPTs.

Q28. Reference: Section 1.5.2.2.4.2 Integrated Product Teams, Page 56, Paragraph 3. Question: Testing is integrated by the IMS and WBS. Security testing also plays a large role in the design and scheduling of the target system. The System Test Plan, Security Test Plan, Systems Engineering Plan all have input to the Systems Engineering Process and the Test & Evaluation Strategy. Will a Test Director be appointed to the Technical IPT?

Government Reply: The Government will have a test director/manager on the Technical IPT.

Q29. Reference: Section 1.5.2 Design, Development, and Deployment, Page 49, Paragraph. Question: All of the items under this paragraph are considered Systems Engineering Products that are typically integrated by and flow from the SE IPT to the PM. Is this work integrated by the Technical IPT?

Government Response: Yes.

Q30. Reference: Section 1.5.1.8 Configuration Management, Page 55, Paragraph 1. Question: Configuration control, security and testing are SE functions that flow from the SE Process and Technical IPT. Will the CSE have a seat on this board?

Government Response: Yes, the CSE will have a seat, and the Contractor will be an advisor to the configuration control board.

Q31. Reference: Section L-6 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS, Page 111, Paragraph 5. (d) (3) Past Performance Questionnaire.

Question: If the offeror provides a past performance that was also used for the TRANSCOM A&AS RFP, and the customer contacts, technical areas and relevance are the same, will those previously submitted customer questionnaires suffice to support this proposal?

Government Response: No. Each proposal must stand on its on; therefore, new past performance information must be submitted with your proposal.

Q32. Reference Section C , Page 65, Paragraph 4.4, Question: The place of performance for this effort is specified to be at the contractor’s facility. Is it required that the place of performance be near Scott AFB?

Government Response: The Government is not dictating the location of the Contractor's facilities. The Government does expect regular, in person interaction with the business process engineering and change management teams.

Q33. Question: The AT21 system is composed of core business processes, information systems, links with outside organizations, and on a developmental level, collaborative work to ensure proper communications with those organizations. Is it fair to ask that there may, either through this effort or a previously initiated effort, be a transformation of the organization taking place? If this is the case, may we be briefed on the effort, to ensure we can align best practices and appropriate program management processes with the organization’s effort while we implement the AT21 system?

Government Response: Relevant information regarding USTRANSCOM's transformation efforts are contained in the bidder’s library. See Section L-9, for the library contents and instructions on how to obtain a copy of the Bidders Library CD-ROM.

Q34. How many people make up the government AT21 Program Management Office?

Government Response: The Government PMO is still being staffed so exact numbers are not available. The Government has adequate resources to manage this effort.

Q35. How many end users are there?

Government Response: At end state, the number of projected users is expected to approximate 6,000 with processing capability to support 1,000 concurrent users.

Q36. There is no place on the Past Performance Questionnaire for the Contracting Officer’s signature. Does this mean that the form does not have to be signed or that another form will be issued with a signature line?

Government Response: The Past Performance Questionnaire does not need to be completed by a Contracting Officer (CO) and does not require the CO signature.

Q37. Section L-5(a) specifies that electronic copies of proposal files be submitted in a format that can be read and edited by Microsoft (MS) Word 2000, Excel 2000, MS Project 2000, and MS PowerPoint 2000. As this offeror uses MS Office 2003 software, would the Government be willing to accept a test file provided in MS Office 2003 format to determine if it opens and can be manipulated in MS Office 2000? Doing so would minimize offerors' need to perform potentially substantial special formatting or "saving down" from 2003 to 2000.

Government Response: USTRANSCOM has plans to upgrade to MS Office 2003 within the next several weeks. If we receive confirmation within the next 10 days that the upgrade will be completed prior to receipt of proposals we will issue an amendment to allow proposals to be submitted in MS Office 2000 OR MS Office 2003.