ID07170051_AAJTS_RFP_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

ID07170051 AAJTS RFP Questions and Answers

1. Is this a new or follow on requirement? If follow on, please let us know the contract number, incumbent name, dollar value and historical level of effort?

ANSWER: This RFP pertains to a follow on requirement. The current contract number is GS00Q09BGD0013, order number GSQ0716BG0079.

The incumbent contractor is Booz Allen Hamilton Engineering Services, LLC. The total dollar value of the current two year contract (base + 1 option year) is $16,403,492.76. With regard to the historical level of effort, the current contract is a Firm Fixed Price solution contract and FTE level of effort is not tracked.

2. If it is a new requirement, then please share estimated level of effort. ANSWER:

N/A. This is not a new requirement, see answer to question 1.

3. Regarding PWS C.68 and C.69: AFI13-112V1, 29 September 2017, section

6.4.3 (pages 28 & 29), referencing Table A6.1 (pages 69 & 70), defines the functions of a Basic JTAC Simulator Operator (specifically AAJTS, identified on page 40), as requiring a high degree of knowledge in air-ground combat systems, joint fires procedures, threat systems, and JTAC Mission Essential Tasks. Do these AFI requirements need to be met for the on-site COMS operators?

ANSWER: Yes

4. Regarding PWS C.110: Does the Government have procedures or targeted capabilities in mind for periodic SIMCERT of the AAJTS and AAJTS-LITE devices? ANSWER: No, not at this time. The Government is currently working on identifying the capabilities, and scheduling annual SIMCERT events. The Government will provide the testing documentation, but the contractor is responsible for supporting these events.

5. Regarding PWS C.110 and Attachment 3 Glossary and Acronyms: We assume the requirement of “SIMCERT profiles consistent with ARASQ” is an error since ARASQ deals exclusively with aerial refueling simulations. We also assume the reference to “KC-135 aircrew training” in the SIMCERT acronym list is in error.

Please confirm. ANSWER: Yes, this reference was in error.

6. Regarding PWS C.2, C.11, C.14, C.17 and Attachment 1 Pricing Spreadsheet:

The program scope includes “Upgrades and Modifications” (C.2), with references to Systems Engineering (C.11), Software Engineering (C.14), and Hardware

Design (C.17). However, the labor categories in the Pricing Spreadsheet do not include systems, software, or hardware engineers. Can we assume that upgrade or modification tasks that require specialized engineering labor will be priced separately as required? ANSWER: No, offerors should not assume upgrade or modification tasks will be priced separately. Offerors should price the requirement fully, as it currently exists, as a Firm Fixed Price solution task.

The pricing spreadsheet references suggested labor categories and hourly quantities but vendors may propose whatever level of effort they deem necessary to complete the task. Reference PWS L.8 “Required Pricing Information” for details and instructions on pricing.

7. Regarding Attachment 4 CDRLs: B007, B009, and B012: Can we assume that CDRLs B007 (Software Design Description), B009 (Interface Design Description), and B012 (Systems/Subsystem Design Description) will only be required for Upgrades and Modifications? ANSWER: Yes

8. Regarding Attachment 4 CDRLs: B024: Can we assume the reference to KC-135 BOSS legacy documentation is an error and is not applicable to the AAJTS TSSC program? ANSWER: Yes, this reference was in error.

9. Regarding PWS L.6: Does the 6 page limit on Past Experience include the 1.5 pages “header” in Attachment 9 – Past Experience Information Sheet? If so, the offeror will only have approximately ½ page per program to describe past experience for each of the three programs. ANSWER: Offerors may reformat Attachment 9 to save space as necessary. However, the information requested in Attachment 9 for each past experience submission shall not be omitted. The concept was to allow for two pages for each of the three programs in a total page limit of 6 pages.