Final_Industry_Q_and_A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 41 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N00421-11-R-0066
About this file
Final Industry Q A's.
View the file
Other files
Show all 38
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
Draft RFP Q&A
| Number | REF/#: | Relevant Text | Question/Comment | NAVAIR ACTION TO TAKE |
| 1 | Section L, Part B, Para 2.1.1 & P7 | Can the government clarify the requirement to submit individual names for non-key personnel in view of the statement in L.B.2.1.1? | There is no requirement to submit individual names for non-key personnel under the technical volume of the proposal. However, if the offeror is proposing current employees under the Cost Volume, employee names will be required as payroll verification for those employees is required under Section L. | |
| 2 | Section L, Part B, Para 2.1.1 & P2 | Will the inclusion of numerous "perspective hires" be viewed unfavorably by the Government evaluators? | No. Inclusion of prospective hires will not be viewed unfavorably by the government | |
| 3 | Section L, Part B, Para 2.1.1 & P2 | Will the Instructions be revised to clearly allow qualification criteria to be stated for the position rather than the individual? | No revision to instruction necessary, instruction clearly relates qualifications to position not individuals | |
| 4 | Section L, Part B, Para 2.1.1 & P2 | Is this table intended to address qualifications and not number of employees proposed by position since resources needed for each requirement of the SOW would be addressed in the BOE's? | Yes, table addresses qualification by labor category | |
| 5 | Section G, Para 5252.201-9502 | Is this an on-site or near range position? | This is an off-site position with on-site availability on an as-needed basis. | |
| 6 | Section G, Para 5252.201-9502 | To meet the technical assistance requirements is an engineer position expected so that 2 positions would be required to provide both contract and technical support? | No, an engineering position is not expected nor required to meet the contractual and technical assistance requirements of this clause. | |
| 7 | Section G, Para 5252.215-9512 | The management costs listed in this paragraph are direct charge to contract, per our approved Disclosure Statement. These costs are not applied as a burden to the subcontract costs, but will be necessary costs to the contract. Will the Government revise this requirement to allow direct charge IAW our Disclosure Statement? | No, this is a standard NAVAIR clause and it will not be revised. The Government believes the offeror is interpreting the clause incorrectly. | |
| 8 | Section H, H-3, Para-(a) | The list in paragraph (b) seems to include some of the same items identified in paragraph (a) as not being allowed to be charged direct to contract. Yet the list in (b) is for items to be rented, leased or purchased if these are rented, leased or purchased for exclusive use under the contract our Disclosure Statement would call for them to be charged direct. In view of Industry Disclosure Statement treatment of such costs, will direct charge for the items listed in (b) be allowable if used exclusively for the contract and not for other general business purposes? | Yes, the items listed in para. (b) will be allowable as a direct charge as those material items would be in direct support of the contract. | |
| 9 | Section H, H-3, Para-(a) | What is the "centrally managed agency" in NAVAIR 5252.242-9515 | There isn't just one centrally managed agency. The NMCARs, Subpart 5201.6, defines each agencies contracting responsibilities. It is an agency that has direct procurement authority to purchase specific items/services (e.g. NAVFAC for construction or Military Sealift Command for vessel leasing). | |
| 10 | Section L, Part A, 1.0 first paragraph and Section L Part B 2.0 | How will the Government evaluate innovations which are suggested by the offeror? | Any innovations proposed by the Offeror will be evaluated based on the information provided in the proposal. As per Section L Part B 2.0, 2nd paragraph, the Offeror needs to clearly explain the benefits to the Government in technical terms and the degree of impact it will have to performance, operations, and/or risk. Innovations that are proposed will be assessed and may be assigned a Strength or Risk Reducer if those innovations are deemed to have bennefit to the Government. | |
| 11 | Section L, Part A, 1.0 first paragraph and Section L Part B 2.0 | Can innovations be suggested, without pricing? | No. If there is a cost associated with a technical or process innovation, the cost must be included in the proposed cost under the applicable CLIN, excluding labor which must be based on the Attachment 2 labor mix. If there is no impact to cost then there would be no change to the price proposal. | |
| 12 | Section L, Part A, 1.0 first paragraph and Section L Part B 2.0 | If pricing of innovations is required, how will Offeror's prices be equalized during evaluation since exceeding the requirements will likely result in increased costs compared to an offer without innovation? | Offerors prices will not be equalized during the evaluation. The evaluation criteria allows for award to a higher priced Offeror which has a more beneficial proposal. As stated in Section M, paragraph I, "Offerors are advised that proposals meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest cost may not be selected for an award if award to a higher-priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher-priced proposal must merit the additional cost. | |
| 13 | Section L, Part B, 3.0,3.1 | If the Cage code associated with Past performance and Corporate Experience has changed will that reference be allowed if the same part of the company bidding is performing the work cited in the references? | Yes. Past performance of any entity with multiple CAGE codes/DUNS will be considered for the same physical location if the current and previous CAGE codes were created as a result of a corporate acquisition, reorganization, merger, or other administrative reason and refer to the same division in the same physical location for where the work is being performed or from where the work is being directed in accordance with the proposed roles and responsibilities. The Offeror shall provide an explanation of why multiple CAGE codes are proposed; identify all applicable CAGE codes along with their defined roles and responsibilities, and a description of all such changes in the organization of the company. The Corporate Experience Factor will be removed from the Final RFP for ATR/ATMO. | |
| 14 | Section L, Part B, 2.0,2.4 | Section 2.4 Transition Plan since the Plan implementation precedes the period of performance will the contract specifically allow charging for these costs? | No, the contract will not allow charging for these costs. | |
| 15 | Section L, Part B, 2.0,2.4 | If not, how will these costs be recouped? | It is not the Government's intent to reimburse these costs. | |
| 16 | Section L, Part B, 2.0,2.4 | Will the Government allow these costs but exclude them from evaluation of price? | No, it is not the Government's intent to allow these costs. | |
| 17 | Section L, Part B, 3.0 and 4.0 and Section M, II, B&C | Can the Government please clarify the difference between past Performance and Corporate Experience in both sections L and M? | The Corporate Experience Factor will be removed from the Final RFP for ATR/ATMO. | |
| 18 | Section L, part B, 3.0,3.2 | The definition of very relevant requires essentially the same scope and magnitude as the solicitation RFP. The example of the IT subcontractor narrows this definition but bullet 3 again states that if there is little of the scope of this solicitation the reference will not be relevant. Can the Government please revise the definitions so that past performance from a teammate performing only limited scope can be determined to be very relevant? | The Relvancy definitions are standard OSD/NAVAIR definitions and therefore will not be revised. However, the concern raised in the question will not be an issue during the evaluation of the Offerors Past Performance. With the example of the teamate that is performing a limited scope of the contract, if that teamate has the same roles and responsibilities that they were performing on the referenced contract then that work will be considered relevant for the future contract and would therefore be considered in the evaluation. Very Relevant has been replaced by Relevant in the RFP. | |
| 19 | Section L, part B, 3.0,3.2 | will the government evaluate the past performance references in total to assign an overall rating of Very relevant, somewhat relevant or not relevant? | No. The NAVAIR process for evaluating the past performance references is to assign a relevancy rating at the contract level and not the overall level. See previous response in regard to Very Relevant. | |
| 20 | Section L, part B, 4.0,4.1 | In order to be rated green across the board under Table C.E.1 it appears that each Corporate Experience reference would have to cover all of the tasks, scope, etc of the 3 evaluation areas. Will the Government revise this section to evaluate the overall total validity of the references rather than require each reference to satisfy all the requirements in order to receive the high test evaluation? | The Corporate Experience Factor will be removed from the Final RFP for ATR/ATMO. | |
| 21 | Section L, Part B, 4.0,4.2.3 | Will a team that has not worked together previously be penalized during evaluation? | The Corporate Experience Factor will be removed from the Final RFP for ATR/ATMO. | |
| 22 | Attachment P3 | Will the Government provide headers for the Workforce Hour matrix, so that all offerors are providing uniform information? | Headers are already provided in Attachment P3. | |
| 23 | K-1 | Will the Government provide the POCs for Array Information Technology, Harris Corporation and Stellar Innovation & Solutions that the Subcontractors can contact if they have questions/concerns on release of Proprietary Data? | No, questions or concerns regarding the release of proprietary information should be directed to the PCO. NAVAIR has fully vetted the non-government participants to ensure that they do not have conflicts of interest. In addition Government has also ensured that they have the necessary non-disclosure agreements and all necessary security precautions in place to prevent release of proprietary data. | |
| 24 | Attachment 2 | In reviewing Attachment 2, the Summary All Hrs tab, the only key personnel documented are located in ATMO. Are there key personnel required in ATR? If so, please identify. | Attachment 2 has been reviewed and revised to include Key positions for ATR. Key personnel minimum qualification requirements for both ATR/ATMO are contained in Attachment 2. | |
| 25 | Section L, Part A, 1.0, 4th paragraph | What specific Government resources or operations will be provided? | There are no GFE or GFP provided to the contractor in performance of this contract. The government will retain ownership of all range resources. The contractor will have shared utilization of all existing range resources and may procure other resources that are incidental to performance of the tasking in the SOW with prior approval of the COR or Contracting Officer. | |
| 26 | Section L, Part B, 4.0 | Can the Government define "instant contract?" | The "Instant Contract" is refering to the contract that will result from this solicitation. | |
| 27 | Section L, Part B 5.6.3.1 | Request Government provide appropriate Wage Determination | Wage Determination numbers are provided in Section J. Go to www.dol.gov to download the documents. A statement will be added to address this in the RFP Section J. | |
| 28 | P7 | Please confirm that the spreadsheets can be updated to reflect our rates per our disclosed practices | The spreadsheet can be updated to reflect your company's rates, however, the hours and values already stated cannot be changed. | |
| 29 | 3.2.9 | Regarding the organizational/intermediate aircraft maintenance level at Oceana shall be capable of performing the same level of system troubleshooting and issue isolation on the aircraft as the O level: This statement is confusing. Is the Government stating O/I Troubleshooting & Isolation with be restricted to typical O-level requirements, or that the contractor must have the same capabilities as USN O-level maintenance? | Workload Technical Exhibit 5 will be revised to include additional information for 3.2.9 AN/ALQ-167 Pod Support (Option CLIN). | |
| 30 | 3.2.9 | In addition, the O/I level mean the contractor? | Workload Technical Exhibit 5 will be revised to include additional information for 3.2.9 AN/ALQ-167 Pod Support (Option CLIN). | |
| 31 | 3.2.9 | Regarding P/I/D level shipments to Pt. Mugu, CA to verify the component's status, is shipment a billable fee? | Workload Technical Exhibit 5 will be revised to include additional information for 3.2.9 AN/ALQ-167 Pod Support (Option CLIN). | |
| 32 | 3.2.9 | Regarding Preventive Maintenance: The O/I level will be capable of performing the same level of preventive maintenance as the O level including the 56 day inspection. What is involved in the inspection.. Are there both non-destructive and destructive testing? | Workload Technical Exhibit 5 will be revised to include additional information for 3.2.9 AN/ALQ-167 Pod Support (Option CLIN). | |
| 33 | 3.2.9 | Travel may be required to support detachments related to Adversary training. Common support sites will be NAS Key West, NAS Jacksonville and MCAS Beaufort. This listing Is not all encompassing of the effort as there may emergent requirements at additional TDY locations. What are the travel assumptions (number of trips per year, number of people)? | Workload Technical Exhibit 5 will be revised to include additional information for 3.2.9 AN/ALQ-167 Pod Support (Option CLIN). | |
| 34 | 3.2.9 | How many F-5 aircraft? | Workload Technical Exhibit 5 will be revised to include additional information for 3.2.9 AN/ALQ-167 Pod Support (Option CLIN). | |
| 35 | 3.2.9 | How many F-18 aircraft and which variants? | Workload Technical Exhibit 5 will be revised to include additional information for 3.2.9 AN/ALQ-167 Pod Support (Option CLIN). | |
| 36 | 3.2.9 | How many sorties per week of month or year per aircraft type? (F-5, F-18) | Workload Technical Exhibit 5 will be revised to include additional information for 3.2.9 AN/ALQ-167 Pod Support (Option CLIN). | |
| 37 | 3.2.9 | How many flight hours per year per F-5 and F-18 | Workload Technical Exhibit 5 will be revised to include additional information for 3.2.9 AN/ALQ-167 Pod Support (Option CLIN). | |
| 38 | 3.2.9 | How many hours and how many technicians does it take to test one pod using NAVAIR tester assuming nothing is failing (golden unit)? | Workload Technical Exhibit 5 will be revised to include additional information for 3.2.9 AN/ALQ-167 Pod Support (Option CLIN). | |
| 39 | Section L, Part-B, 3.0, 3.2. | Provide a concise assessment of the degree of relevancy that each past performance referenced contract has to the solicitation, identifying tasks and/or aspects of the effort undertaken on the contract that are relevant to the program. Include your assessment of the relevancy of the contract in terms of one of the following ratings: Very Relevant (VR) or Somewhat Relevant (SR), where: |
Very Relevant (VR) – Present/past efforts involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Somewhat Relevant (SR) - Present/past efforts involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Issue 1:The definition of Very Relevant requires essentially the same scope and magnitude as the solicitation RFP. The example of the IT subcontractor narrows this definition but bullet 3 again states that if there is little of the scope of this solicitation the reference will be not relevant. Definition of Very Relevant seems inconsistent.
Issue 2: If a contractor offers up several references that taken together cover all the scope and complexity of this solicitation but individually do not then the ratings would be Somewhat Relevant for each reference when in fact ALL the scope and complexity was covered just not in one reference. The only offeror likely to get highest ratings as the evaluation stands now is the incumbent. Issue 1 Response; The definitions for Very Relevant and Somewhat Relevant are standard OSD/NAVAIR definitions and therefore will not be revised. Very relevant contracts involve essentially the same scope and magnitude, somewhat relevant involves "some" of the scope and magnitued and not relevant contains "little or none" of the scope and magintude of the effort. Therefore there is no inconsistency in the definitions. The Government has removed the Very Relevant rating and replaced it with a Relevant rating based on the standard OSD/NAVAIR definitions. Ratings will consist of Relevant, Somewhat Relevant and Not Relevant.
Issue 2 Response: The contractors past performance Confindence Assessment rating is based on the offerors performance on all relevant contracts (both relevant and somewhat relevant). An offeror with all Somewhat Relevant contracts could receive a Substantial Confidence Assessment rating (highest rating).
| 40 | Section-L, Part-A, 1.0, first paragraph, and Section-L, Part-B, 2.0. | Throughout the Technical Volume the Offeror should identify any capability, approach or feature that is being proposed as exceeding a requirement or provides merit associated with a performance or operational benefit to the Government or being proposed as reducing risk inherent in the program. | The Offerors are advised that the Government may incorporate into the final contract any part of the Offeror's proposal deemed beneficial to the Government. The concern relates to being placed at a competitive disadvantage in comparison with an offer that merely meets the SOW requirements. | The evalauation criteria allows for award to a higher priced Offeror which has a more beneficial proposal. As stated in Section M, paragraph I, "Offerors are advised that proposals meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest cost may not be selected for an award if award to a higher-priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher-priced proposal must merit the additional cost. |
| 41 | Section-L, Part-B, Para 2.1.1. and Attachment P7 | Section-L Part-B, Para 2.1.1. states The Offeror is not required to name specific individuals proposed for Non-Key labor categories at the time of proposal submission. This is inconsistent with the information in Attachment P7 // CLIN break Out requires "Employee Names in Column-F". | This is contradictory and favors the incumbent if names are to be provided in attachment P7 The requirement to submit labor rates for proposed individuals is problematic for non-incumbent bidders who have not yet hired their staff. Both these requirements favor the incumbent who has the complete labor base and their rates. Furthermore, contractors often bid based on FPRA rates not actual rates so names would not be appropriate for Non-Key Personnel. The requirement to provide Payroll verification is unnecessary as DCMA can verify FPRA rates and review actual records if actual labor rates are proposed rather than FPRA rates. | In the Technical Proposal, there is no requirement to submit individual names for non-key personnel. For Attachment P7 names are only required for current employees. If the offeror is proposing prospective employees names are not required. |
| 42 | L, Part A 2.1.8, Table 2.1 | "exec#.pdf as requested will place the files in an alphabetical order. Would you like for us to use the file naming convention as "#exec.pdf" so that it will align the files in numerical order? | Please use the file naming convention provided in Section L, Part A 2.1.8, Table 2.1. | |
| 43 | L, Part B 3.0 Volume 3 - Past Performance | Will the Government identify minimum/maximum numbers of cited programs for submission? | There is not a maximum or minimum number of past performance references requested as long as the provided references are relevant to the solicitation requirements and are within 5 years from the proposal due date. | |
| 44 | L. Part A 3.0 | Please clarify "The proposal information instructions are structured by paragraph numbers where first, second, third and fourth parts correspond to the volume, book, and element, etc., in the Offeror's proposal. | The intent of this language is to show the structure of the Section L, Part B Specific Instructions paragraphs. For example, the Technical volume is Volume 2, Personnel and Staffing is Element 2.1, and Personnel Certification/Qualification is sub-element 2.1.1. This RFP does not have any subfactors so there are no "books" or "sections" in this solicitation. | |
| 45 | L. Part A 3.0 | Please provide all information required for the cover and title page. | The Cover and title page should include at a minimum, the title of proposal and proposal number, Offeror’s name, address and POC, RFP number, Proposal volume number, and Copy number. |
| 46 | L. Part A 5.0 | How should Set No 2 copy be marked? | Please mark Set No. 2 copy the same as Set No. 1. | |
| 47 | Attachment P6 | Does the Government mean to reference Attachment P1 - Relevant Contracts Table? | No. Attachment P6 is for the Corporate Experience Volume and contains 3 different excel worksheets. However, the Corporate Experience Factor will be removed from the Final RFP for ATR/ATMO. | |
| 48 | L Part B 5.7.2.1 | Please verify that bidders are not permitted to propose labor hours or labor categories that vary in any way from the information contained in Attachment 2 | Offerors shall propose labor hours and categories as specified in Attachment 2 Labor Categories & Hours Worksheet. | |
| 49 | L Part A 2.0 | Please confirm Graphics/Illustrations are different than Graphs and Tables and therefore not constrained to the limitations of Graphs and Tables. | Graphics/Illustrations are different than Graphs and Tables and therefore are not constrained to the limitations of Graphs and Tables, however, the graphics/illustrations resolution must be consistent with the purpose of the data presented. | |
| 50 | L part B 2.1.1 | Is the offeror allowed to include additional positions as key? | No additional positions other than those identified in Attachment 2 may be designated as key. | |
| 51 | L Part B 2.0 | Is it the Government's intention that the Offeror address only the SOW sections identified within Table T.1 Cross reference Matrix? | No. The Offeror must provide the information requested in Section L. The SOW paragraphs identified in the Cross Reference Matrix are intended to guide the Offerors with respect to which SOW requirements are related to the Section L paragraphs. The Offeror should address as many of the SOW requirements as necessary to fully substantiate the offerors proposed approach. | |
| 52 | L Part B 1.0.f | This subsection (Page 92) references " Volume 4 Table C.E.1 Contractor Experience". All other references (Page 103) to Table C.E.1 in the RFP are titles "Evaluation Area Summary" Should this one reference be "Evaluation Area Summary"? | The Corporate Experience Factor will be removed from the Final RFP for ATR/ATMO. The Volume 1 - Executive Summary instructions will be modified to reflect these changes. | |
| 53 | L. Part B 2.8.1 and L Part B 3.0 | Sections reference "Annex D Contractor experience" as a required part of proposal Volume II (Technical), however, there is only one other references to 'Contractor Experience" elsewhere in the solicitation - L.B.1.0.f, which may be misidentified as Table C.E.1. Please provide instructions for the required content of Annex D | This was an error in the Draft RFP. The RFP Section L Past Performance volume has been updated to require an Annex D with the proposal submittal. Annex D will contain the SOW/PWS from each of the offeror's past performance referenced contracts and will only be submitted electronicaly. The Final RFP will be updated to reflect this change. | |
| 54 | L Part A.2.1.8 | The NOTE in this subsection states 'The files should have the following naming conventions…" Please verify that the file naming conventions in this subsection are mandatory. | The Offerors are requested to follow the provided naming convention to assist the Government in the evaluation organizatiion, however, the file naming convention is not mandatory. | |
| 55 | L Part A 4.0 | The last sentence of the first paragraph of this section includes a list of proposal tables, and states that "it is requested" that they be submitted three weeks in advance of the proposal due date. Is this a requirement, and if so, will offerors be able to submit corrected versions of these tables at later dates if necessary to ensure that they are consistent with the submitted proposal. | The information identified in this paragraph is an early request for data in order for the Government ot start collecting past performance data. This is only a request and is not a requirement. The information submitted early may be updated with the formal proposal submittal. | |
| 56 | L Part B.2.1.1 | This subsection cites both Attachments P2 and P3 of Section J as the sources for the contents of Annex A Personnel certification and Qualification. Please confirm that the contents of Annex A are to be the completed worksheets of both Attachments P2 & P3 (i.e. 'Workforce Qualifications" & "Workforce Hour Matrix") | Yes, offerors proposals should include Attachments P2 & P3 in Annex A. | |
| 57 | L Part A.1.0 | The definition of a "Critical" subcontractor in this section includes the use of the term "medium risk". That term is not used anywhere else in the RFP. Please confirm that "medium risk" is the same as "Moderate Risk" as defined in the table in Section M.III.A(b) | The term Medium risk mentioned in Section L Part A.1.0 is not the same as the Moderate risk definition identified in Section M.III.A(b) and the High risk mentioned in Section L Part A.1.0 is also not the same as the High risk definition identified in Section M.III.A(b). | |
| 58 | L.2.1.8 | This paragraph initially identifies valid MSOffice file naming conventions for submissions as ".docx,xlsx,and pptx, ad states that the files should have these extensions. However, Table 2.1 offeror Electronic File Naming Convention specifies file extensions of ".doc and .xls" Please clarify whether both extension forms are acceptable, or if not which ones shall be used by offerors. | Both file extensions are acceptable. | |
| 59 | Section M1.B | This section identifies relative evaluation importance for award at the Volume level, but does not provide any indication of the relative importance of subfactors (i.e. for Volume 2 - TECHNICAL , what are the relative importance of 2.1 Personnel and Staffing, 2.2 Management Plan, 2.3 Technical Capabilities, 2.4 Transition Plan & 2.5 Small Business. Will the Government please provide additional weighting information about the relative importance of major evaluation Subfactors in the Technical Volume | There are no subfactors in the Technical Volume. The areas identified in Section M.II.A are considered elements of the technical volume. There is no stated relative order of importance for these elements. | |
| 60 | Will exclusive teaming arrangements be prohibited? | No, exclusive teaming arrangements will not be prohibited as long as they do not inibit competition. NAVAIR clause 5252.215-9505 Exclusive Teaming Arrangements that Inhibit Competition will be added to the RFP. | ||
| 61 | Government Trip Wires have already been proven to be incorrectly established for SCA Rates. Will this be corrected such that routine application of loads will not drive the fully burdened rates over these erroneous levels? | The Government trip wires will remain as stated in the RFP. Exceeding a tripwire does not make a proposal unawardable. | ||
| 62 | It appears there is not a separate CLIN for transition or phase-in. How will transition be evaluated and how will the costs be accounted for? | The offeror's Transition Plan will be evaluated as part of the Technical Evaluation. It is not the Government's intent to reimburse these costs. | ||
| 63 | Does the 20% small business requirement include material purchases, labor or both? | The offerors proposal may meet the mandatory 20% SBR by using material purchases, labor, ODC, travel or any combination of these items. | ||
| 64 | Can you explain the government's expectations with regards to the incumbent contracts who operate the various maritime vessels? Do we need to have teaming agreements in place with them? If so, will the government identify who they are (e.g directed subs)? | There are no directed subcontractors in the solication and there is no requirement for offerors to use or propose the current incumbent subcontractors who operate the various maritime vessels identified in the SOW. | ||
| 65 | Are the, or how many of the remote instrumentation items are manned during range operations? Mostly contractor? Government people? | Support of remote test and training events typically involves a team consisting of both government and contractor personnel along with those instrumentation systems, vessels, targets, equipment, etc. required to meet customer requirements. The mix of government and contractor personnel varies per event to meet the customer requirements but it is typically more contractors than government personnel providing operational technical support during these remote events. | ||
| 66 | Is there a Range Safety Solution that’s based on instrumentation availability to monitor test operations? | Yes, execution of those test and training events with established safety criteria are dependent upon the availability of those range safety systems required to monitor safety data and perform operational risk assessments. | ||
| 67 | Is there a Range Safety Solution that’s based on an abort capability to both systems and other live fire capabilities safe? | Yes the Range Safety Team excerises a "No Go" authority as well as flight termination systems to ensure safety criteria are met during testing and training events. | ||
| 68 | Is there a Range Safety Solution that’s based on what is the contractor interface and participation to that inherently Gov't function? | Contractors assist Government Range Safety personnel and the Range Safety Officer by performing the specific tasks outlined in Paragraphs 3.1.4.2, 3.1.4.3, and 3.1.4.4 . Contractors do not perform any of the inherently Governmental Range Safety functions. | ||
| 69 | Do the divers at atmo have to follow adli guidelines? | Yes. ATMO divers hold, as a minimum, an Advanced Open Water certification. | ||
| 70 | How much ATMO maintenance and repair work takes place in remote locations - outside of pax? | ATMO maintenance and repair can take place at all ATMO work sites as well as at remote test and training event locations. The quantity of repair work at remote locations varies depending upon the nature of the failures and the frequency of maintenance is dependent upon the nature of the maintenance required. | ||
| 71 | Section L, 2.3 | 2.3 Technical Capabilities | Question: Will the government expand this Section L Technical Capabilities direction to include objectives for range O&M and sustainment? | Yes, Section L Technical Capabilities direction will be revised to include objectives for Range Operations, Maintenance, and Sustainment support services. |
| 72 | SOW 3.1.25.3 | More detailed descriptions of these SE projects are found in Technical Exhibit 12 | Will the government provide TE 12? | The reference to Technical Exhibt TE-12 in the Draft SOW was incorrect. Technical Exhibit TE9 will provide historical information on capabiliies improvement and modernization (I&M) projects and descriptions of system and equipment sustainment projects for informational purposes only. |
| 73 | Section L 5.7.1.2 | 5.7.2.1 The government historical estimate is 4,470,738 hours for the entire work effort. A work-year is defined as 1920 hours exclusive of holidays and leave. The contractor shall propose these labor hours per labor category. See Attachment 2 for a breakdown of labor categories and associated hours. | Is the government interested in approaches to staffing efficiency? How will the government evaluate any proposed efficiencies? | Offerors shall propose labor hours and categories as specified in Attachment 2 Labor Categories & Hours Worksheet. Any effeciencies proposed by the Offeror will be evaluated under technical based on the information provided in the proposal. As per Section L Part B 2.0, 2nd paragraph, the Offeror needs to clearly explain the benefits to the Government in technical terms and the degree of impact it will have to performance, operations, and/or risk. Efficiencies that are proposed will be assessed and may be assigned a Strength or Risk Reducer if those efficiencies are deemed to have benefit to the Government. |
| 74 | SOW 3.1.25.3 | Projections of the exaxt I&M efforts to be supported by the contractor cannot be provided as such projects vary year by year | Can the government provide target level number of projects with dollar thresholds? | The government will not provide projected target level number of projects with dollar thresholds. TE9 provides historical information on capabilities, improvement and modernization (I&M) projects and description of system and equipment sustainment projects to assist the offeror in understanding the type of projects that they might support during performance of the contract. |
| 75 | SOW 3.3.2.5 | The contractor shall maintain range equipment that has been altered from this original configuration. The contractor shall also maintain equipment where, due to age, orgin, manufacturer, or modifications, the availability of parts, drawings and documentation may be limited or non-existent. The contractor shall modify equipment to meet specific maintenance or functionality requirements. | Can the government provide non-incumbents a list of range equipment including maintenance and functionality requirements and any drawings, specs, redlines, training material, O&M procedures, etc? | All applicable range equipment is contained in each section of the SOW and further described in TE-1&TE-3. A separate compiled list of maintenance and functionality requirements and any drawings, specs, redlines, training material, O&M procedures,will not be provided. |
| 76 | Section B Clause 5252.211-9503(a) | See Attachment 2 - Labor Categories & Hours Worksheet * denotes Key Personnel labor categories | In Attachment 2, no program management categories are starred as Key Personnel. Question: Will the government's clarify its interpretation of Key Personnel? | Key personnel are considered to be essential to the work being performed under this contract. Key personnel requirements are established based on the roles and responsibilities of the position. See Attachment 2 for the Key personnel labor categories within the ATR/ATMO program. |
| 77 | Attachment 2, Summary all hours | key personnel | Only ATMO key personnel shown, and some at a lead and analyst level. Does the government intend to provide resumes for these individuals? | No resumes for current personnel will be provided. Key personnel minimum qualification requirements for both ATR/ATMO are contained in Attachment 2. |
| 78 | SOW 6.0 deliverables | 6.0 Deliverables | There are substantially more CDRLs than the provious solicitation. Why the change from current contract? Will the governmnet provide copies of the current CDRLs? | Additional CDRLS have been identified to clearly communicate the data requirements that must be provided by the performing contractor. The Government will not provide copies of the current CDRLs. |
| 79 | CDRLs .pdf files with DRFP | References to SOW sections in CDRLs 1-3 are incorrect. Will there be a revision to the CDRLs listed? | Yes, either the SOW or the CDRLS list will be revised to correct the cross references between them if necessary. | |
| 80 | SOW 3.1.22.2.1 | Provide development support to sustain, imrpove, and modernize the Government-owned TRMS application to meet new operational requirements identified by users. Development support for TRMS shall be implemented in accordance with performance requirements, budget, and schedules established by the Government TRMS Program Manager. | Question: Will the government provide TRMS program and technical documentation refered to in this requirement? | The government will provide the TRMS program and technical documentation required to perform the tasking in the SOW 3.1.22 during the transistion period. |
| 81 | Attachement 2 labor categories | ATR PM labor categories | "Program Managers" show up in the following SOW sections: 3.1.27 - Admin & Clerical, 3.1.14 - Electro-Optical Tracking, 3.1.26 - Management Support, and 3.1.22 - TRMS in Hawaii. Given the integrated team structure of ATR operations, can the government provide some clarification of the of overall program management responsibilities of these contractor posistions? | Attachment 2 of the RFP describes the functions of the program manager. |
| 82 | SOW & Attach 2, 3.1.2,3,15,16&18 | labor categories | Airspace Management, Meteorology, RT Telemetry Processing System, Geomatics & Metrology, Photogrametrics, and System Admin have NO dedicated staff. Question: Is the government going to provide more fidelity in Attachment 2 so that non-incumbents can understand staffing requirements? | The government will provide current personnel requirements in a new Technical Exhibit for the capabilities listed in the SOW. This will be provided for informational purposes only. The personnel numbers and distribution vary according to test and training event workload requirements. |
| 83 | SOW 3.1.25 | Misison: Systems Engineering provides a structured methodology for the execution of new range capability development projects and life cycle support of range capabilities and systems. The mission of the ATR SE process is to provide reliable, supportable and well documented range capabilities and systems that meet customer test and training requirements. The ATR SE process and documentation supports peer review of system developments, providing awareness of capability developments across the various ATR teams. | Will the government provide the ATR SE process and documentation to non-incumbents? Will the government provide description of the composition of the various ATR teams to non-incumbents? | Yes, the Government will establish a Technical Library containing available Standard Operating Procedures, technical process and guideline documentation including, but not limited to the SE Management Plan and the ATR CM Plan. |
| 84 | SOW 3.1.26.5 | Research prepare, and provide management support documents for senior leadership in accordance with CDRL A002 such as memoranda of Understanding (MOU), Memorandua of Agreement (MOA), Commercial Service Agreement (CSA) and Inter Service & Intergovernmental Support Documents (IA Documents) with other DOD labs and ranges, other US Government Agencies, Commercial entities and foreign governments | Please clarify reference to CDRL A002 in section 3.1.26.5. SOW section 6 shows this CDRL as a Software Test Plan, primarily for TRMS. | Attachment 1 SOW para 3.1.26.5 will be updated to reflect the correct CDRL. |
| 85 | SOW 3.1.30 & Attachment 2 | This tasking provides for Information Technology (IT) liaison and coordination support services to be provided to AIR-5.2, 5.33 and other organizations (other NAVAIR, NAWCAD, NAWC_WD) for Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) issues. Support will be provided at the Government facility at Patuxent River Naval Air Station. | Attachment 2 Labor Spread has Order Clerks and Supply technicians (3 total) Will the government clarify Attachment 2 labor categories for SOW 3.1.30? | The government will provide current personnel labor category, quantities, and distribution requirements in a new Technical Exhibit for the capabilities listed in the SOW. This will be provided for informational purposes only. The personnel numbers and distribution vary according to test and training event workload requirements. |
| 86 | SOW 3.1.31 & Attachment 2 | 3.1.31 Janitorial and Custodial Services | Attachment 2 shows Janitorial service done by Computer Support Techs. Will the government clarify this labor staffing requirement? | The SOW reference in Attachment 2 was incorrect and will be corrected with final RFP release. |
| 87 | SOW 3.1.10.1 | 3.1.10.1 Misison | Will the government provide more detail on systems so that effort can be more accurately quoted? | The Technical Exhibits provide sufficient technical information about the range systems and equipment for the contractor to understand the tasking in the SOW. Detailed system technical information such software operating system (OS), electrical schematics, and system O&M technical manuals will be provided during the transition period. |
| 88 | SOW 3.1.10.2.1 | provide development support to sustain, improve, and modernize Government-owned ADAMS processes systems and equipment to meet current and future range operational requirements. Development support shall be implemented in accordance with performance requirements, budget and schedules established in I&M Project Plans. | Improvement & Modernization (I&M) project plans not provided. Performance requirements, budgets and schedules not included. SOW paragraph requests support to sustain, improve and modernize while not providing a sufficient baseline description of system or a capabilities roadmap. It will be difficult to respond to SOW paragraph without sufficient detail. Recommend detail disclosure of desired future range capabilities. | Projections of the exact I&M efforts to be supported by the contractor cannot be provided as such projects vary year by year. During the period of performance of the contract, as I&M needs develop, the Government will provide I&M Project Plans required to perform the SOW tasking to the contractor. |
| 89 | SOW 3.1.10.2.2 | 3.1.10.2.2 Research, analyze, and document requirements for new or modified ADAMS capabilities, systems, and equipment required to support range test and training events. | Is there a vetting or coordinating process that the customer prefers? Are there customer stakeholders that participate in the process? | There is not a specific vetting or coordinating process that the contractor has to follow in performing this SOW task. This task will typically involve participation of customer stakeholders but not all the time. |
| 90 | SOW 3.1.10.2.3 | 3.1.10.2.3 Provide recommendations of changes to hardware and software configuration of the ADAMS to the Government ADAMS TPOC. | Will the government provide baseline system hardware and software descriptions? Is hardware modular and capable of being swapped by RF or digital section? Is current software written so that modules can be rewritten and inserted in overall load? | The Government will provide all system specific hardware and software technical information including, but not limited to baseline system hardware and software descriptions required to perform the SOW tasking during the transition period. |
| 91 | SOW 3.1.10.2.4 | 3.1.10.2.4 Document and track any changes to the hardware and software configuration of the ADAMS systems and equipment IAW established configuration management processes. | Will government provide bidder with approved configuration management process as well as the existing hardware and software configuration? | Yes, a copy the ATR Configuration Management Plan will be provided in the Technical Library. The Government will provide all system specific hardware and software technical information including, but not limited to existing system hardware and software configurations required to perform the SOW tasking during the transition period. |
| 92 | SOW 3.1.10.3.8 | 3.1.10.3.8 Perform operational support tasking IAW the RCS Range Book. | Will the government share a copy of the range book to allow bidders the opportunity to review the tasking required? | Yes, a copy of the RCS Range Book will be provided in the Technical Library. |
| 93 | SOW 3.1.10.4.1/4.2 | 3.1.10.4.1 Schedule and perform PM during nonoperational support times IAW with all applicable OEM maintenance manuals and range maintenance processes. Document all PM actions in maintenance logs. | Will the government provide bidder with sample of system maintenance logs to understand the level of documentation expected? | Yes, a sample of system maintenance logs will be provided in the Technical Library. The Government is currently using a variety of software applications to produce electronic system maintenance logs and is transitioning to a single SharePoint solution to manage and document all system PM and CM actions. |
| 94 | SOW 3.1.10.4.6 | 3.1.10.4.6 Maintain material and equipment levels required to support the operation and maintenance of ADAMS system. | Will the government provide documentation on equipment type failure rates and expense, including information as to whether any of the equipment has been retired ? | No. Equipment that is retired subsequent to release of the Final RFP will be identified during the transition period. |
| 95 | TE5 Workload History | Material $'s | Along with the TE 8 (material and ODC purchase history) will the government provide equipment baseline list and planned upgrades? | The government does not have a"projected target" with dollar thresholds. TE9 will provide historical information on capabilities, improvement and modernization (I&M) projects and description of system and equipment sustainment projects for informational purposes. |
| 96 | TE5 Workload History | Material $'s | Historic data makes no mention of material $'s spent in the past to update software and the types of tools utilized in order to sustain ATR products (i.e. Rational Rose, C++, JAVA, Visual Basic). Question: Can the government provide a listing of software tools and languages utilized in order to maintain and sustain all ATR products? If Free and Open Software Solutions (FOSS) are allowed, pleased provide acceptable products used today (i.e. Subversion for Software CM). | This information is not required for proposal submission and will be provided during the transition period. |
| 97 | TE5 Workload History | Labor Hours Spent | The government mentions numerous software products that are sustained and modified in order to support the ATR mission. However, no details have been provided on Single Lines of Code (SLOC) estimated and sustained on yearly basis. Can the government provide addtional workload indicators that state how much software development is conducted on a yearly basis in terms of SLOC? | This information is not required for proposal submission and will be provided during the transition period. |
| 98 | SOW 3.1.11.1 | The PRISM system is composed of the following system components: IR Cameras (including (3) 640x512 MWIR Imagers, (1) 640x512 SWIR Imager, (2) 640x480 LWIR Imager, and (2) FLIR microbolometer Cameras) |
• Imager Optics (including (3) 550mm lenses, (3) 50/250 lenses, (1) 155mm lens, (2) 50mm lenses, and (1) 12 degree lens)
• (2) Bomem MR304 Spectroradiometers
| • Data acquisition, processing, and display systems (including personal computers, file servers, NAS data storage systems, tape backup archive robot system, DVD optical recorders, IRIG time generators, UPS power backup systems, and associated plasma and LCD data displays) | Question: Will the government provide more information on make and model number of available IR imagers and lenses and/or if they are custom manufactured equipment? Need more information on available blackbody sources for calibration and the temperature limits of each. Is the data processing software COTS or custom software; is it Government furnished? Will the government provide s/w documentation? | The range equipment and systems the contractor will be performing the tasking listed in the SOW on is provided in each section of the SOW and further described in Techical Exhibits TE1 and TE3. Specific equipment make and model numbers and detailed maintenance and functionality requirements, drawings, specifictions, and software documentation required to perform the SOW tasking will be provided during the transistion period. | |||
| 99 | SOW 3.1.11.3.6 | Provide services to tear down, transport, and set up PRISM systems and equipment in new locations as required by the Government. | Will the government provide a tear down and transport description of PRISM? | The Government will provide all system specific hardware and software technical information including, but not limited to tear down, transport, and setup descriptions required to perform the SOW tasking during the transition period. | |
| 100 | Section L 2.1.2 | "It is the Government's expectation that the contractor will work with the Government to minimize crew size … | How can the contractor respond with any suggested minimizations if they are to bid the hours in Attachment 2, i.e. 24 Full-time Equivalent (FTE) personnel? | The staffing proposed by the Offeror in response to the Technical Evaluation Section L.2.1.2. is based on a one-time example scenario for Technical evaluation purposes. Your proposed answer should not impact your cost proposal. | |
| 101 | Attach. 2 3.2.4 | The table contains no Engineering Tech II position and also has separate lines for Engineering Techs III & V. Also, Mate only shows up here. | Why no Eng Tech IIs? Why have separate lines for IIIs & Vs? How can there be 2.36 FTEs for Mates with no overtime in the OT tab of the spreadsheet. Please clarify. | The Government will review hours and labor categories/overtime and revise as necessary. | |
| 102 | Section L 2.4 | Transition Plan. • Work Turnover. The offeror shall provide a plan of action to effectively transfer tasked work that is in process at the expiration of the current contract from the incumbent to the successful offeror. | How and when will any of this work be identified? | Each offeror shall provide in their proposal, a plan of action to effectively transfer tasked work that is in process at the expiration of the current contract from the incumbent to the successful offeror. During the transition period, tasked work in process will be defined and provided to the successful offeror | |
| 103 | Section L 2.4 | Transition Plan · Staffing. (2) Filling those positions should any of the incumbent workforce reject the offer to work for the offeror in support of the successor contract or if any of the incumbent workforce is not qualified based on the minimum qualifications contained in the solicitationclause | Are there currently incumbents who don't have the minimum qualifications, and if so, please identify | The RFP contains the minimal qualification requirements for the contract and all offeror's shall meet requirments at contract award. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .