Industry Day Questions-Responses.pdf

1. Question: Are any of the on sight install included in the PWS?

a. Answer:

Yes, the PWS may include on site instrumentation installation work, particularly if the project involves development or procurement of facility instrumentation. This however has not been a large area of work in recent years.

2. Question: Documentation/Integration management, is that part of the scope?

All engineering work done on this task is owned by the government.

Documentation and formats for engineering work products will be specified in the requirements for individual task orders.

3. Question: You would provide to the new contractor any tech data package for any modification?

Tech data packages are provided for each task order where required.

4. Question: What about the source of the software?

Any software source developed by the contractor will be a deliverable on the task. Government software source required by the contractor for a task will be provided by the government.

5. Question: The government will give the contractor the design for the box, we aren’t doing any of the engineering/design for the box?

a. Answer:

In recent years the majority of the work has been “build to print” tasks to fabricate instrumentation based on Government designs. The PWS also includes the capability for the contractor to perform engineering work to develop or improve data acquisition module boards, instrumentation enclosures, or instrumentation software.

6. Question: When you give us that particular task, how will we come to you for pricing?

The Government will provide a request for proposal with a level of effort (LOE) for each task from which the contractor will propose based on negotiated contracted labor rates and any other subcontracting or material pricing.

7. Question: Have you had challenges on the current contract with these “black boxes.” Customer give you a design, contractor builds the print, and it comes back and it’s not working according to customer’s standards. Have you had any issues?

a. Answer:

For build tasks we provide the technical data package as well as testing procedures to give an overall checkout of the instrumentation. Procedures are expected to be complete prior to delivery of instrumentation. The government will then independently run through tests to verify quality. In cases where test test procedures to not pass, the contractor communicates the issues with the Government and we work to help diagnose the problems since the Government has the most experience with the hardware. We typically are able to diagnose these to build quality issues (cables produced incorrectly or assembly done incorrectly) or PCB errors which should be handled by the PCB fabrication company. Generally, a request for hardware includes specification of more PCBs than required for the number of boxes built. These are used to quickly repair failing boxes so schedule can be kept, and the additional working PCBs are used as spare parts throughout the instrumentation lifespan.

8. Question: Maintenance, we have the ADMAS units on the test ranges, they are going through testing a lot. What’s the contractor’s role in maintaining them and refurbishing them?

a. Answer:

Contractor is not directly responsible for maintenance or repair of equipment once the government has accepted the delivery and completed initial verification. Any additional parts, engineering effort, or maintenance required tasks will be requested as new task orders.

9. Question: External harnesses interfacing with the vehicles under test, is that also under the contract?

In some cases these are part of a task order, particularly for large or specialized builds, but generally these interface cables are handled by the Government internally.

10. Question: Environmental/Reliability requirements, do you provide these to the contractor as well? We wouldn’t have to test the box? We’re going to rely on ATEC’s engineering?

a. Answer:

ATC will verify delivered hardware meet our design. The contractor will not be requested to independently test environmental concerns unless it is specifically indicated in the task order as part of a new design.

11. Question: So what I’ve heard so far is that most of this contract is build to print with some customer surge support on the hardware, limited software/limited firmware/limited tech software. Would we be using some type of software (LabU/Python)?

a. Answer:

There are software development capabilities in the PWS which the government may choose to exercise when required.

12. Question: How many tasks orders have been out in this last cycle?

There were 3 task orders in the current cycle. Each of which lasted several years and had several modifications to them over the course of the task.

13. Question(s): How large were the task orders in dollar amount? Over what period of time? So specific funding for this is an IDIQ over 5 years, I read $50 million over 5 years, is that correct? From year to date for the current one, how much has been expended? So a relatively small dollar amount?

a. Answer:

b. Task Order 1: Total Ceiling: $149,189.93 Total Expended to date:

$149,189.93

c. Task Order 2: Total Ceiling: $242,535.33 Total Expended to date:

$242,535.33

d. Task Order 3: Total Ceiling: $1,516,286.11 Total Expended to date:

$1,328,803.95

e. Task Order 4: Total Ceiling: $139,417.02 Total Expended to date:

$139,417.02

f. The funding obligated in total on this IDIQ contract will be determined throughout the life of the contract. At this time, ATC does not have a solid estimate, however, the contract value (ceiling) of the new award may be significantly less than the prior $50M. This is still being determined. The new award will have an ordering period of five (5) years.

14. Question(s): Do you anticipate multiple awards? Just one award?

a. Answer: At this time, ACC anticipates the award of a single-award indefinite-delivery-indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) task order contract.

Question(s): Currently it’s a single award, IDIQ, and this contract has been out for 40 years.

How long has the incumbent been in place? And who was the incumbent? The last time around, was its classification in small business? But with an additional classification or just small business? Do you foresee it going ADA, service veterans, etc.?

b. Answer:

The awarded contractor for this effort has changed multiple times over the last 40 years. The last two awardees were ORBIS and the incumbent is CRAIG. The market research from the upcoming RFI will determine if this will be set-aside for small business. At this time, ACC cannot speak to a specific set-aside as that decision will also depend on the final market research.

15. Question: The official RFI, when are you looking to get it out on the street? How about past performance, do you guys look at past performance?

The RFI is anticipated the week ending 21 June 2024 and will be posted at www.SAM.gov. For the RFI, industry is being tasked with providing a capability statement. In that statement, the company can provide prior efforts if desired. Past performance will be evaluated as part of the Request for Proposal and the date for that release is still TBD.

http://www.sam.gov/

16. Question: Has that always been the case, the last 40 years has there ever been a classification at all for this contract?

a. Answer: To the best of our knowledge this requirement has not been set-aside to a particular small business slassification.

17. Question(s): In the last round you had mentioned that you didn’t get a good response, you’ve also mentioned that finding a company that can do all of this is difficult. If you can’t find companies that can do the work, and you don’t get many bidders, it sounds like lowest price for the last contract was the main factor. Was there any other factors that you cared about? Has the lowest price worked for you on this contract? Is experience different then past performance?

a. Answer: Prior contracts have been awarded as lowest-priced technically acceptable. I cannot speak to whether the lowest-price has “worked for us” on this contract. ACC is considering putting the upcoming solicitation out as a trade-off to see if we can get a better response and also an overall better value to the Government. Experience is considered as how well, how long, how refined a company has performed on prior efforts while past performance consider the recency and relevancy of prior effort the same or similar to the effort in the RFP.

18. Question: For clarification, out of the 4 /5 years, only $5 million has been awarded but you have a ceiling of $50 million?

a. Answer: That is correct. This effort has not been clearly defined in the past, which is part of the purpose of the industry day event. ATC and ACC are working to establish a more firm ceiling and performance work statement for the upcoming award.

19. Question: Would you be able to get a forecast? It would be better for industry. I don’t understand how we can price something if we can’t understand the forecast of tasks. Like he’s saying, you’re just going to get low costs and when you’re getting into specifics, that’s tough to do.

a. Answer:

Currently I don’t have any specific forecasted tasks or scope that would be used in this contract. One of the reasons the government maintains this contract is so that we have the ability to move quickly in our unpredictable work/funding environment.

20. Question: As part of the RFI, will you solicit recommendations with respect to ideas for contractors? We definitely have some input regarding what we can do regarding engineering and costs that would prove beneficial.

21. Question: I’m interested in the concept of low bids. We have a small company, we’re building to print, materials like you said you run it to make sure all the parts are there, then you run it for costs. Our costs are defined by approved rates. I can’t manipulate that. What are you manipulating for price? When we make something custom, it depends on how complex it is, but that’s based on the spec. We say this is what this will cost. I’m trying to better understand how people are managing costs.

a. Answer:

Each individual task will be sent for a separate proposal and then evaluated for fairness and reasonableness based on award amounts and also industry standard.

22. Question: Past performance evaluation? What does that look like?

Past performance is evaluated for recency and relevancy. A parameter for recency, i.e. 5 years, will be provided in the solicitation under sections L&M.

23. Question(s): How are you going to cost past performance? You say CPARS. Multiple times I’ve encountered technical guys will evaluate past performance. They never review the cost of past performance, they only look at past performance in general.

Nobody evaluates the cost of past performance. How do you define past performance? It it’s just acceptable/unacceptable, its all about how you define it.

a. Answer:

Past performance is evaluated as acceptable/unacceptable and is never evaluated for cost. The price/value of prior contracts submitted for past performance are reviewed for coherence to the requested effort for relevancy.

24. Question: Are there any other units that are potentially using this contract besides

ADMAS?

a. Answer:

Yes, this contract is available for the entire test center’s needs for instrumentation. ADMAS was talked about most because it uses it the most frequently, but other groups can use the contract.

25. Question: Will you allow NAVY money (mipers?)

a. Answer: This is still being reviewed and will be determined at a later date.

26. Question: Historically have you gone over $5 million or $10 million?

Yes.

27. Question: The sample task. When I look around, I recognize a lot of faces. You do want 2 different things under the contract. I want to be sure that come award time, it’s going to be a level playing field. In order to make a level playing field, in generating accurate costs for the sample tasks, what type of information will be given to price out the building to print/procurement of these units? Will you be allowed to give CUI to anyone who wants it?

If a sample task involves a board fabrication, the TDP will be provided.

28. Question: Do you guys dictate the engineering/management orders that will be applied to the task order? In the quote will it be a total cost? We have people paid more but they get the job faster versus a junior engineer who has less experience and therefore cost less.

a. Answer:

Some tasks involving labor, the government will specify what types of labor we are looking for (senior vs junior etc). Some tasks are level of effort indicating a specific number of hours, while others are project based indicating a specific deliverable. In any case, each task will be discussed and approaches negotiated in the bidding phase for that specific task order.

29. Question: If you go down the FFP route, are you anticipating having a warranty clause with the vendor? Is that something you’ll include in the task order? There isn’t a warranty period once you accept the product? That’s important with our pricing if we are required to have any type of warranty.

a. Answer:

For government supplied designs, I don’t believe we have ever done specific warrantee clauses beyond the testing done prior to government acceptance. For a contractor developed design a warrantee clause may be indicated in the individual task order requirements. This will be determined prior to RFP release.

30. Question: You don’t have preference with cost + fixed fee & firm fixed price?

I feel that most of our work lends itself to the cost+ fixed fee approach as there is often design elements which may require multiple prototype work or design changes. Fixed price may be applicable to some “production” builds, however even in those often there are small design or component changes made along the way which may lead to cost+ being a better fit.

31. Question: Could you give us a list of companies of past manufactures?

Most recently Gorilla Circuits has done all of the PCB manufacturing.

Enclosure fabrication has most recently been done by Xometry. Cable fabrication is often done by the contractor directly or subbed out to a number of different places.

32. Question: Are these companies required to meet the ITARS standards, there’s no red flags?

a. Answer:

Yes, the current effort requires ITARS standards and this will be required on the anticipated upcoming award.

33. Question(s): What are your cyber requirements? This is touching other government equipment so are there any cyber requirements you’re looking at with the design?

When selecting manufactures who is responsible for looking at the foreign components of these designs? How about the parts, are you going to give us a list of approved parts? Will there be a substitute parts list as well. Do you have an alternative list now? If we do change the alternative parts and you guys accept, whose responsible for the retrofit of the black box? If we selected it and you approved it, you guys will be in the contract as well?

a. Answer:

Technical Data package will include all parts for the bill of materials.

Alternate parts will be negotiated with the Government.

34. Question: Can we request for a deviation modification or alternative parts?

Technical Data package will include all parts for the bill of materials.

Alternate parts will be negotiated with the Government.

35. Question: You do this as one, ongoing task?

In many cases, due to the way our organization operates, a single task will be setup that includes some design/prototype work and a full production build.

This often includes several modifications to the overall task along the way where funding or scope changes are required.

36. Question: So you have one big pot of money? There is no separate pots of money for building and testing?

a. Answer:

It’s not always the same, but frequently our funding for building and testing comes together and needs to be obligated together. See previous answer in #35.

37. Question: Are there SCA positions mandated in this?

Answer: No SCA positions were mandated in prior iterations of this requirement.

38. Question: If you have a list of vendors that you consider to be approved, but you can’t dictate, is there a reason that you wouldn’t dictate it?

Answer:

We like the contractor to have the ability to provide better service through their experience and industry knowledge. However, with each individual task, the approach taken, and suppliers used etc. will be discussed as part of the proposal in negotiating each task award. The Government doesn’t want to pigeonhole contractors into specific suppliers up front as this may not be the most cost-effective approach in an unstable economic environment.