N00421-18-R-0009_Q&A_after_final_RFP.pdf

4/8/2019 Q&A after final RFP.xlsm

1 of 8 Q&A after final RFP.xlsm

Final RFP Questions Response

Question: Reference Section L, Part B 1.0, Table ES-3 (page 95) The status of the Earned Value Management System is requested. Please clarify if this is relevant to this contract. EVM is not applicable to this contract. The Offeror may cite N/A for this system.

Question: Reference Att_L-4_Vol_4_HEEWJ_PPQ On page 2, item 3b F is blank. Is that correct?

Yes. Please disregard PPQ 3b f.

Question: Reference Section L Volume 5 Price (Para 5.1) This paragraph states: “Section B prices shall be provided separately in one digital data copy in MS Office 2016 Excel format on DVD-ROM media.” However, Section L Part A 2.1.7 - Table G-2 does not provide a file naming convention. Please clarify.

The Offeror may use any naming convention they find suitable for the Section B prices

Question: Reference Section L, Part B 4.0 Volume 4 –Past Performance. In Annex A, offerors are required to provide electronic copies of the complete final versions of the SOW/PWS or other supporting solicitation/contract documentation from each contract or delivery/task order reference. Table G-2 provides a single file naming convention for these pdf files. Is it acceptable to include the Contract Reference Number from Table ES-2 as part of the file name to identify the applicable contract for each SOW/PWS copy?

Yes. The Offeror may use any naming convention they find suitable the Annex A information.

Question: Reference Section L, Part B 4.0 Volume 4 –Past Performance. This paragraph requires that the Offeror forward, within two weeks from this solicitation’s release date, a copy of Attachment L-4 PPQ to our contract references. Advance copies of Tables ES-1, ES-2, PP-1, CE-1 CE-2 and Annex A are requested two weeks prior to submission date. Given that the PPQs are to be forwarded by our references to the Government within 2 weeks, will the Government revise the due date for PPQs to be forwarded to contact references to “four weeks prior to the submission date/time specified on Standard Form 33 (Block 9).” This would result in the PPQs arrival to the Government coinciding with our submission of the relevant tables?

Please forward the PPQs to your contract POCs as requested in the RFP.

2 of 8 Q&A after final RFP.xlsm

Final RFP Questions Response

Question: Reference Section L, Part B 4.0 Volume 4 –Past Performance. This paragraph requires that the Offeror forward, within two weeks from this solicitation’s release date, a copy of Attachment L-4 PPQ to our contract references. If the Offeror identifies additional past performance project(s) after this deadline and include those in our submission, will the Government accept for evaluation a PPQ sent to those references after two weeks from this solicitation’s release date?

If any additional contract references for Past Performance are identified beyond the timeframe requested in the RFP, please send them to the POC as soon as possible. The Government will accept PPQs that were forwarded to the contract reference POCs before the Proposal Due Date.

Question: Reference Section L, Part B 4.0 Volume 4 –Past Performance, Section 4.2, Paragraph

1. In discussing Table PP-1, this paragraph states: “Please note that this form is a summary of the principal entities’ relevant contract data. All detailed information and comparative analysis of the past performance contract references to this solicitation’s requirements shall be provided in Volume 4 (Past Performance), Section 4.3 (Evaluation), of the Offeror’s proposal.”

If we are to follow the paragraph numbers/letters in Section L as instructed in L 3.0, it seems that this detailed information would be in sections addressing Section 4.2 and 4.3. Please clarify.

Section 4.2 of the proposal should include a completed PP-1 for each contract reference. The PP-1 is a summary of the contract reference.

Any further information that pertains to the relevancy of the contract reference, a brief description of the performance of the contract, any past problems or adverse past performance, and any demonstrated systemic improvement, should be expounded on in section 4.3, as requested in 4.3 a, b, and c.

3 of 8 Q&A after final RFP.xlsm

Final RFP Questions Response

Section L.B.4.0 Volume 4 – Past Performance states, “For contract references that contain delivery/task orders, additionally provide the work description for each specific delivery/task order.”

Section L.B.4.2 Relevant Contract Data states, “The Offeror may use one reference number/PP- 1 tab for multiple D.O.s/T.Os if they are the same work effort and performed under the same CPAR; however, identify the dollar amount and period of performance for each. Do not provide a contract reference to the basic contract.”

These excerpts have the potential to contradict each other. This offeror wants to be completely certain that we precisely understand the Government’s intent regarding exactly what Past Performance information is required for Single-Award, Multiple Delivery Order contracts. Because many of these contracts comprise over one hundred DOs, the amount and type of information required for each DO has the potential to significantly exceed the suggested page count for Volume 4.

In addition, the statement, “Do not provide a contract reference to the basic contract,” is confusing, given the context. SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Will the Government please confirm that, when citing Single-Award, Multiple Delivery Order contracts that fall under a single Performance Work Statement or Statement of Work, and for which all work is addressed in one annual CPAR, Offerors are not required to provide a separate work description for each Delivery Order? Regarding the statement, “Do not provide a contract reference to the basic contract” — will the Government please confirm that, when citing Single-Award, Multiple Delivery Order contracts (and specifying each DO number, and respective periods of performance and dollar amounts), Offerors are to provide the information associated with the overall Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract under which the Delivery Orders fall?

If an Offeror has a single-award, multiple delivery order contract in which all orders fall under a single performance work statement or statement of work and all effort is under one CPAR, then yes, Offerors are not required to provide a separate work description for each delivery order.

If an Offeror cites a Single-Award, Multiple Delivery Order contract (and specifying each DO number, and respective periods of performance and dollar amounts), then yes, Offerors are to provide the information associated with the overall Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract under which the Delivery Orders fall.

Question: Reference B. III Definitions, Other Evaluation Definitions (page 119)The definition for Principal Entities includes entities performing critical functions and provides as examples “functions include providing primarily EW design services, or primarily EW training services.”

We interpret “critical functions” as including services such as aircraft maintenance services, and providing pilots or other crew for missions. Does critical functions include services similar to these?

The Government does not concur with the interpretation as stated in the question. For the “critical function” portion of the “principal entity” definition, the Government will only accept the two critical functions provided in the RFP.

4 of 8 Q&A after final RFP.xlsm

Final RFP Questions Response

Question: Reference Section L Part B, 4.0 Past Performance (page 103)The third paragraph states: “The Government may contact customers identified by the Offeror to obtain follow-up Past Performance Information as needed.” If an offeror provides as a past performance contract work they performed for a customer who is part of a competing team on this solicitation, and that customer does not return the PPQ to the Government, will the Government contact the referenced customer to obtain the required past performance information?

The Government will attempt to collect past performance information for each contract reference submitted.

Several sections on RFP pages 101 – 102 have double numbering. It appears that the auto-numbering feature of Word may be to blame. SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Will the Government please confirm that the numbering for these sections should be 3.4.1 through 3.4.5 (as in the DRFP) and offerors should disregard the new numbering (3.5 through 3.9)?

The correct numbering is 3.4.1 through 3.4.5 for those paragraphs. The RFP will be corrected to reflect the correct numbering.

Will the Government fix the paragraph numbering errors. SEC L Page 101-102

Yes, the numbering errors will be corrected.

The Government states: "The evaluation will also include an assessment of the Offeror's (1) Aircraft Performance, (2) Airworthiness, (3) Aircraft Support, (4) Technical Approach and (5) Small Business (SB) Utilization Strategy." Question, are Offerors to assume that these evaluation criteria items (1) through (6) are of equal importance? SEC M Page 113 Para 2.0

The RFP provides that under the Technical Factor, “[a] Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned.” The RFP does not include any specific order or importance or weighting criteria at the “element” level. Aircraft Performance, Airworthiness, Aircraft Support, Technical Approach, and Small Business (SB) Utilization Strategy will all be taken into consideration when assigning both the Technical rating and Technical Risk rating.

5 of 8 Q&A after final RFP.xlsm

Final RFP Questions Response

PWS section 4.1.4.2 for the current CAS contract (N00421-18-R-0031) states, “Any Government fuel used for maintenance test flights, maintenance ground turns, and training flights must be reimbursed to the Government.” There is no similar verbiage in Section 4.2.5.1 in the PBWS for the HEEWJ contract. SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Is it the Government’s intention to NOT allow contractor reimbursement of other fuel charges?

The Government will add the sentence "Any Government fuel used for maintenance test flights, maintenance ground turns, and training flights must be reimbursed to the Government.”

In Table III, Target and/or Banner Tow, it states “Permanently mounted Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS II) at 25 NM in clear weather.” TCAS II does not have a mileage limit in clear weather. It appears that the words “at 25 NM in clear weather,” which appear directly below, in the “Weather Radar” row, may have been inadvertently inserted here. SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Should the sentence end in “…TCAS II.” as do the parallel sentences in the EA and SOJ sections of the PBWS?

Page 33: Concur Change sentence to read: "Permanently mounted Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) II" to mirror other sections (EA & SOJ)

The PBWS states: “The Contractor shall provide a test report validating platform performance with required equipment IAW this PBWS for Government approval (CDRL A003) to achieve IOC and FOC.” SPECIFIC QUESTION:

What is required to be in the Test Report to validate IOC and FOC? Is there a prescribed format?

There is no prescribed format, however, it is expected that "industry best practices" are utilized and summarized to include the functional verification of all systems on the planned platform are operational and ready to move to the next phase of Flight minutes.

Will the Government fix the paragraph numbering errors: Simultaneous Presentations s/b

4.1.5 SEC C Page 13 Para 4.1.4 Yes, the paragraphs will be corrected.

The Government lists the maximum possible quantity of minutes to be ordered but has given no information of historical usage rates. Previous information given ( in a draft RFP) was later categorized by the government as inaccurate in response to industry questions. SEC B Page 4,5

Flight minutes provided are based on historical actuals, projected T&E usage and increased capability.

6 of 8 Q&A after final RFP.xlsm

Final RFP Questions Response

Delivery information for CLINS 0001-0003 has delivery dates starting 30-Oct-2019. Does this imply a Contract Award (CA) date in Oct 2019 (Q1 Financial Year 2020)? Previous verbal guidance indicated CA in Q1 Calendar Year 2020. What is the Govt planned CA window (wrt Fiscal or Calendar year)? Sec F Page 40 CLIN 0001,0002, and 0003

Yes, Contract Award (CA) is planned for 30 Oct 2019, Q1 Financial Year 2020.

Question: Reference Section A, page 3 and 4 CLINs 0001, 0002 and 0003 This section portrays a single price for each month of the stand-up capability for the respective CLIN. Is it acceptable to propose multiple prices, e.g. a price for months 1 to 12 and a different price for months 13 to 16?

No. It is not acceptable to propose multiple prices, e.g. a price for months 1 to 12 and a different price for months 13 to 16. Since there is one single ordering period for this contract, offerors shall propose one-unit price for CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003 that will be used throughout the ordering period, e.g. one-unit price for CLIN 0001, one-unit price for CLIN 0002, and one-unit price for CLIN 0003.

Descriptions for CLINs 0004, 0005 and 0006 states that these service costs shall include all flight support costs to include "…weather…". Can the government clarify the intent of the reference to weather? Does this indicate accounting for weather attrition sorties (and if so, can the government provide historical weather attrition statistics)? Or, does this indicate a concept of launching missions to perform 'weather-checks' (and if so, can the government provide historical planning statistics for these missions)? Or something else? SEC C, Page 8

As stated on Pg 8: "...support costs, e.g. ferry operations, weather and navigation services, maintenance, installation and removal of Government Furnished Property (GFP), Government provided mission equipment, Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE) and any other operating costs not outlined in the monthly fixed operating costs CLIN 0008. " Indicating that weather service fees, etc. be included in your flight service costs.

For CLINs 9 and 10 what ground support equipment (GSE) will be available at these other locations and what will have to be shipped as CFE? Sec C Page 9

Pg. 9: Common GSE equipment is available at each location, but must be coordinated in advance with each operations department by the contractor or the Govt representative.

What technical and administrative data is required to be provided for CLIN 11? Sec C Page 9

Exhibit A will be published with the attachments in the RFP.

For CLIN 12 the number and complexity of these modifications is undefined. Sec C Page 9 Correct, future modifications are unknown to us at this time. This CLIN provides some flexibility to provide technology insertions to the Fleet as required to meet demands.

Will we be given a mission mix of these profiles? SEC C page 12 Parta 4.1.4

Mission mix is derived from the flight hours provided in Section B

7 of 8 Q&A after final RFP.xlsm

Final RFP Questions Response

CDRL A003 is referred to in several paragraphs (3.2.1, 3.2.4, 5.3.5) relating to demonstrating remaining fatigue life. SEC C Page a4 Para 4.2.4

Management procedures should include Configuration Management of the fatigue life parts. See CDRL A003, DD Form 1423-1

Does the maintenance facility require a SECRET clearance? SEC A Page 2 para 4

pg. 2 (4): Yes, the RFP states: " The Contractor will be required to have a SECRET Facility clearance upon award. Security clearance requirements are identified in Section C – Performance-Based Work Statement (PBWS), and Attachment (1) – DD Form 254." and in accordance with the Offeror's OPSEC plan.

Will all maintenance personnel be required to have a SECRET clearance? SEC C Page 22 Para 9 Per para 9.0: "All Contractor personnel shall maintain security clearance eligibility commensurate with the level of classification of the work performed as annotated in the Contract's DD-254, Contract Security Classification Specification Form." Security Clearance requirements are outlined in Block 13 of the DD Form 254.

Do maintenance records have to be tracked on a stand alone system. SEC C Page 23 Para 9.3

If the equipment is in your custody, it should be tracked IAW NSDD 298, and should be procedurally covered in your company's OPSEC plan.

Question: Reference Section A, page 2 Item (4) Please confirm whether a SECRET Facility clearance (FCL) is required at the time of award (as currently set forth on page 2 of 119, Section A of the RFP). Specifically, we request clarification whether a SECRET Facility clearance is required prior to the Contractor needing to perform work requiring a SECRET Facility clearance on the Contract. If a SECRET Facility clearance is required at the time of award (as opposed to at the time work requiring the FCL is performed), this would discourage bids from newly-formed Joint Venture entities (permitted under FAR 9.601(1)), which may be able to “offer the Government the best combination of performance, cost, and delivery for the system or product being acquired.” (FAR 9.602(a)). Experience has shown that once a Contract has been awarded, DSS is better able to quickly process FCL’s for Joint Venture entities. For this reason, we would respectfully request that the Agency clarify in the RFP that it will work with all offerors to obtain the SECRET Facility Clearance prior to the Contractor being required to perform work requiring a SECRET Facility clearance, and that the FCL is not required at the time of award.

IAW Section A, page 2 Item 4, a SECRET FCL is required at the time of award. 1) The designation of the FCL is based upon the requirements of the contract to be awarded at the time of award. 2) IAW DSS policy, the FCL must be in place for CAC card applications to be submitted, cleared and issued on the contract.

3) A currently Cleared Defense Contractor (CDC) may sponsor an uncleared company for an FCL.

8 of 8 Q&A after final RFP.xlsm

Final RFP Questions Response

Question: Reference Section A, page 2 Item (4) A SECRET Facility clearance (FCL) is required as currently set forth on page 2 of 119, Section A of the RFP. Is it acceptable for a joint venture member to provide the FCL for a newly formed joint venture until such time as the joint venture obtains a FCL?

IAW DSS policy, a currently Cleared Defense Contractor (CDC) may sponsor an uncleared company for an FCL.

Question: Reference Section A, page 2 Item (4) A SECRET Facility clearance (FCL) is required. Is it acceptable for a newly formed joint venture to perform under an interim FCL until such time as the joint venture obtains a final FCL?

IAW DSS policy, DSS may be able to issue an interim FCL prior to issuance of the final FCL. In order to be issued an interim FCL, DSS must first validate that there is no unmitigated foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI), Key Management Personnel (KMPs) have personnel clearances at the interim level or higher, and the initial orientation meeting has been completed. Official guidance on interim FCL's can be found at http://www.dss.mil

Does this time reporting have to be in accordance with DFAR 15 ? SEC C Page 34 para all Contractors shall report time IAW the contract clause “C-TXT-ECMRA

REQUIRED ENTERPRISE-WIDE CONTRACTOR MANPOWER REPORTING

APPLICATION (ECMRA) INFORMATION (NOV 2017)”.

Ref Appendix D-II USQ-113 “or CFE equivalent” – Please provide the technical specifications, maintenance and operating manuals for the AN/USQ-113 to allow the bidders to determine what capabilities are required to meet the “or CFE equivalent” alternative. This documentation was not included in the IRD data.

Technical requirements will be included in an amended FBO posting.

Q&A