ADVTE-Next Draft RFP Questions and Comments.pdf

Question

RFP DO1 Attachment

IDIQ

SOW

Referenc

DO1

SOW

Reference

DO1

PRF

Referenc

CDRL

Reference

Page

Number

Government Answer

Please clarify the acronym OSMP within the context of “Program specific OSMP” that is listed as information and data required for the PAC presentation.

N/A N/A N/A

3.2.4.1.d

(10) N/A N/A N/A 25

The requirement for OSMP has been removed as a requirement within the SOW.

1. This section refers to a DMSMS Management Plan under CDRLs C002, J002, Q002 and W002.

These CDRLs do not appear within the provided list of CDRLs. Please clarify the requirements within this Section.

Basic IQC

RFP

Section

H.7

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 21

The Government has updated Section H.7 of the

Basic IDIQC RFP that clarifies a DMSMS and any associated CDRLs are to be specified on individual

Delivery Orders as required.

There is a requirement for an Engineering Drawing (Family) Tree to be delivered by the reference documents. I do not see any existing Engineering Drawing (Family) Tree available in the Government

Furnished Information provided to date. Is there an overall family tree available for the existing devices. Will existing tree(s) be made available to contractors? If so, when?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

CDRL E005

PEDDAL/AD

VTE TDPCR

20-04

N/A An Engineering Drawing (Family) Tree does not exist and therefore is not available for release.

3.1.13.2 Emergency Power Off (EPO) control devices states:

EPO control devices shall be provided at the IOS(s), trainee station(s), and other locations designated by the Government

1. Will the Government please provide current EPO wiring diagrams for each site?

This information is needed to develop a reasonable EPO plan and an accurate cost proposal.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

3.1.13.2

Emergency

Power Off

(EPO)

control devices

N/A 37

The Government does not have specific site diagrams detailing the EPO configurations, only drawings for racks of equipment and related that are provided with the GFI. With respect to PRF para 3.1.13.2 which requires EPO control of IOS(s) and trainee station(s), offerors shall reference the

Network Exercise Control Center (NECC) that was offered for review and question/answer at MCAS

Miramar on Industry Day, 24-25 Oct 2019, as a typical layout of equipment located in a NECC and equipment room and plan accordingly. EPOs shall be planned for all NECC rooms, System

Administration Station (SAS) rooms, and Server rooms.

3.2.15.2.1 states

The contractor shall:

d. Utilize a course instructor(s) who has been a member of the team that developed the training documentation and is fully knowledgeable of the training device technical data to deliver the

Instructor/Operator/Maintainer training.

1. Is the ‘training documentation’ deliverable? If so, should there be a TPSD CDRL?

N/A N/A N/A N/A

SOW

3.2.15.2.1

Instructor/Op erator/Maint ainer

Training, subparagraph d.

N/A N/A 56

Yes, the training documentation will be a deliverable. And yes, there will be a corresponding

TPSD CDRL for the training documentation deliverable.

Are existing Trainer Facility Reports (TFRs) for each site available to use as baseline for the new TFRs required by CDRL D003? There does not appear to be any in the existing Government Furnished

Information provided to date.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

CDRL D003

Trainer

Facility Report

N/A TFRs do not exist for ADVTE

7 Please confirm that the NAICS code for this solicitation is 541330.

Section L, Part B,

5.0 Small

Business

Participati on

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 73 No, the NAICS code is 541512-Computer System

Design Services for this solicitation.

1. On the DO1 Section B tab, should cell E11 link to CPFF Labor Matrix tab cell AA27, vice Z 27?

2. On the CPFF Labor Matrix Example tabs, the FCCOM rate appears to be applied to GA costs only for both Labor and ODCs. Should FCCOM be applied to total costs?

3. CPFF Labor Matrix Example 2 presents an example of pricing for Hardware Engineering hours being provided by a subcontractor. Assuming all Hardware Engineering hours are priced as a

Subcontractor, should the number of hours within cell C5 be “0”? The current example is double-counting costs for Hardware Engineering.

Section L, Part B, Volume 4

Price/Cost

N/A Section L_Att 8

Price Matrix N/A N/A N/A N/A 79

1. The cost for CLIN 8002 (which is Cell E11) of the DO1 Section B tab was incorrectly linked to cell

Z27, it has been updated.

2. The methodology for evaluating cost has changed and updated instructions will be included within the

Final RFP.

3. The methodology for evaluating cost has changed and updated instructions will be included within the

Final RFP.

1. CLINs 1001 and 2001 reference SOW #190061 paragraphs 3.1.2.b – 3.1.2.d. Is the scope of work to be potentially performed under these CLINs limited to only these SOW sections?

Basic IQC

Section B N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2&3

No, Section B of the IDIQ RFP as been updated to reflect the scope of work for CLINs 1001 and 2001 to include: paragraphs 3.1.2.b - 3.1.2.d, and

3.2.15.14 of the Basic IDIQ SOW 190061.

1. The Section references Attachment 6. There is no Attachment 6 within the RFP. Should this reference be D.O. 1 Section J Attachment 3?

Basic IQC

RFP

Section

H.6

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 21

The reference within Section H.6 of the RFP has been updated to refer to the GFI List as simply an

Attachment because the number may change with the issuance of each new delivery order.

1. The item requires indirect rates for 60-month period of performance yet refers to FY 21-FY27 (which would be an 84-month PoP). Please confirm whether the Price Matrix only requires Indirect Rates for the 60-month Ordering Period.

2. Please confirm that the CPFF Labor Matrix and Indirect Rate tabs require pricing by Calendar Year.

Basic IQC

RFP

Section L and Price

Matrix

N/A

Basic IQC RFP

Section L and

Price Matrix

N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.4, Item b

1. The Government only requires indirect rates for the 60-month ordering period of the IDIQ contract.

Therefore, the Government has updated Section

L.4.4(b) and the Indirect Rate tabs of Att. 8 to now specify rates for fiscal years 2021 through 2026.

2. The Government has also updated the CPFF

Labor Matrix and the Indirect Rate tabs to require pricing by Fiscal Year.

1. CLIN descriptions within Section B do not match the descriptions within the Price Matrix. For example, CLIN Section B Location Price Matrix Location

0001 New River Cherry Point

1001 Cherry Point New River

2001 Lejuene Beaufort

Please clarify the device locations associated with all DO 1 CLINs

N/A Section B N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

The Government has updated DO1 Section B within

Att. 8 to reflect the CLIN descriptions within

Section B of the Draft DO1 Contract.

1. CLINs 8001, 8002 and 8003 apply to multiple devices. Please clarify the Ship To Address for these three CLINs which currently list Cherry Point only.

N/A

Section

F.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20

Although CLINs 8001 through 8003 applies to multiple sites, only one address can be listed. The

Government has updated Section F of the Draft

DO1 contract to clarify our intent for CLINs 8001 through 8003 ship to address.

14 1. Please confirm this Clause applies to only CLIN 8002. N/A

Clause

5252.232-

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 32

Yes, NAVAIR Clause 5252.232-9509 has been updated to reflect that it is only appliable to CLIN

8002 of the Draft DO1 Contract.

Attachment L-8: The CLINs shown on the DO1 Section B tab do not align with the Section B in the

RFP. Would the government please provide the correct CLIN alignment for the Att L-8?

Attachment L-8: The link in cell E11 of the DO1 Section B tab is linking to cell AA27 of the CPFF

Labor Matrix, however that cell is blank. Would the government please update the link to the correct cell, AB26)?

Attachment L-8: The column headers for the CPFF Labor Matrix refer to “Years 2021, 2012, 2022, 2023.” For offerors operating on a fiscal year calendar with different indirect rates per fiscal year, is it acceptable to modify the column headers to reflect fiscal years and modify the formulas to allow for the composite indirect rate calculation across fiscal periods and periods of performance?

Section L.4.4: c) The Government intends to bind the successful Offeror to its indirect rates by incorporating them into Section B of the IDIQ contract prior to contract award. These indirect rates will be used in all individual delivery orders as applicable.

Does the government intend to treat them as caps or will the successful Offeror have to bid every delivery order using the exact indirect rates as proposed.

Section L N/A Att. 8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

a. The Government has updated Attachment L-8, DO1 Section B tab so that it is consistent with

Section B of the Draft DO1 Contract.

b. The Government has updated the link for CLIN

8002 (Cell E11) in the DO1 Section B tab within

Attachment L-8 .

No, it is not acceptable to modify the column headers. The Government has updated the CPFF

Labor Matrix Tab and Indirect Rates tab to reflect fiscal years.

c. The successful Offeror will be required to use the indirect rates incorporated within Section B of the

IDIQ contract for all individual delivery orders.

Level of Effort: Section L.4.3 (c) states that the hours in tab CPFF Labor Matrix (total 590 hours) should not be adjusted for purposes of evaluation. The Price Attachment includes 2 examples of how to complete the CPFF Labor Matrix tab for adjustments needed when using subcontractors and/or indirect labor. Neither of the 2 examples provided total to the 590 hours. Can the government please clarify if offerors are to propose the exact level of effort per category on the CPFF Labor Matrix tab (total 590 hours), or if offerors are permitted to make those adjustments as long as the total LOE is proposed?

Section

L.4.3 (c) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

The methodology for evaluating cost has changed and updated instructions will be included within the

Final RFP

Liquidated Damages--Supplies, Services, or Research and Development SEP 2000

Will FAR 52.249-14 take precedence over this clause in the event of delays caused by COVID-19?

Section I, FAR

52.211-11

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 36

It is premature to answer the question without a set of facts that will be required to assess any applicable regulations.

Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data --

Modifications

OCT 2010

How will this clause apply with no requirement for certified cost or pricing data? Is this clause in place for future awards or modifications requiring certified cost or pricing data?

Section I, FAR

52.215-21

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 36

FAR Clause 52.215-21 Requirements for Certified

Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified

Cost or Pricing Data -- Modifications is applicable to proposals submitted as a result of a modification to awarded delievery orders that exceed the $2M threshold.

Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Third-Party Contractor Reported Cyber Incident Information

OCT 2016

Will the successful offeror and its subcontractors be supporting the Government in reporting 3rd party cybersecurity incidents under this award? If not, and this clause is not applicable, will the Government consider removal from the ADVTE Next solicitation?

Section I, DFARS

252.204-

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 38

1. DFARS Clause 252.204-7009 requires contractors to safeguard covered defense information and reporting cyber incidents.

2. No, DFARS Clause 252.204-7009 is required to be included in all DOD solicitations and contracts.

Patents--Reporting Of Subject Inventions APR 1990

DFARS 252.227-7039 does not apply to DoD contracts because the overarching FAR 52.227-11 is not applicable to DoD contracts. Will the Government consider the removal of the referenced DFARS clause 252.227-7039 and replace it with the more applicable DFARS clause 252.227-7038 Patent

Rights—Ownership By The Contractor?

Section I, DFARS

252.227-

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 39

FAR Clause 52.227-11 Patent Rights-Ownership is applicable to DOD contracts and it is also included within this RFP. Additionally, the Government will not replace DFARS Clause 252.227-7039

Patents—Reporting of Subject Inventions with

DFARS clause 252.227-7038 Patent Rights-

Ownership by the Contractor.

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF TRAINING DEVICES (NAVAIR) (OCT 2007)

NAVAIR clause 5252.246-9513 Inspection and Acceptance of Training Devices (OCT 2007) may not be applicable to all ADVTE Next DOs.

Will the Government consider tailoring clause 5252.246-9513 so that acceptance for delivery and installment of Training Devices are separated (i.e. Delivery acceptance at Source and Installment acceptance at Destination)?

Section E, NAVAIR

5252.246-

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8

No, the Governmet will not consider tailoring

NAVAIR clause 5252.246-9513. However, the

Government may include additional clauses at the

DO level if the clauses at the IDIQ level do not appropriately address an aspect specific to that DO.

MARKING OF WARRANTED ITEMS (NAVAIR) (OCT 2005)

The current ADVTE Next SOW does not mention warranted items. Would the Government consider removing this Clause 5252.247-9503?

Section

D, NAVAIR

5252.247.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6

No, the Government will not remove NAVAIR

Clause 5252.247-9503 as it is applicable to any items delivered to the Government that are covered by a warranty.

Does the USG expect a Small Business Participation Plan for each of the follow-on delivery orders or only for the first delivery order submitted?

5.0 Small

Business

Participati on

Commitme nt

Document at the

IDIQ Level

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 73

A Small Business Participation Commitment

Document (SBPCD) similar to Section L Att. 3 and

4 will be required for each of the follow-on delivery orders if the awardee is a large business.

Paragraph 4.4, C states, “The Government intends to bind the successful Offeror to its indirect rates by incorporating them into Section B of the IDIQ contract prior to contract award. These indirect rates will be used in all individual delivery orders as applicable.”

1. Should this paragraph state explicitly “these indirect rates will be used in all individual delivery orders as applicable for cost-type CLINs”?

4.4

Indirect

Rates

Informati on, C

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 80

No, the Government will utilize these indirect rates to evaluate the awardee's proposals for both firm-fixed-price and cost-type CLINs submitted for all individaul delivery orders and any modifications.

The Government has updated Section L, Volume

IV, Paragraph 4.4(c) to state that "these indirect rates will apply to both firm-fixed price and cost-type delivery orders."

It appears there is an error in the formula on the Examples for CPFF Labor Matrix (EXAMPLE 1) Tab and (EXAMPLE 2) Tab in that the formula did not apply FCCOM across the entire subtotal value.

1. Would the Government please confirm that establishing the formula’s for calculating fully burdened values on the CPFF Labor Matrix will be established/controlled by the Offeror.?

Section L N/A Att. 8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

The methodology for evaluating cost has changed and updated instructions will be included within the

Final RFP.

Section H, Paragraph H.2 (a) states:

Unless already covered by an approved comprehensive subcontracting plan, a Small Business Individual Subcontracting Plan (ISP) will be submitted for the basic contract if the awardee is a Large Business and incorporated in Section J. The Small Business ISP shall include all elements specified in FAR 19.704 and shall identify goals as currently set by DoD for Fiscal Year 20: SB-32%; SDVOSB – 3%; WOSB – 5%;

HUBZONE – 3%; and SDB – 5%. The separate goals for each socio-economic category shall be submitted with each proposal submission.

Section L, Paragraph 5.0 Small Business Participation Commitment Document at the IDIQ Level states:

Each Offeror (Large and Small Businesses) shall complete the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) provided as

Attachment L-3 and submit it as a part of Annex A Small Business. The SBPCD shall identify a minimum small business participation goal of

15% of the total estimated IDIQ ceiling value and list the planned small business participants.

Section L, 5.2 Small Business Participation Commitment Document for DO1 states:

Each Offeror (Large and Small Businesses) shall complete the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) provided as

Attachment L-3 and submit it as a part of Annex A Small Business. The SBPCD shall identify a minimum small business participation goal of

15% of the total estimated IDIQ ceiling value and list the planned small business participants.

M3.6 Administrative Completeness e states:

Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror provided the following information requested in Section L

Volume 4 Paragraph 4.4 of this solicitation.

e) Small Business (SB) Subcontracting Plan - Large Business Offerors provided their Small Business Subcontracting Plan conforming to the requirements of FAR 19.7 and DFARS 219.7 as part of Volume 4 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan). SB Subcontracting Plan of the successful Offeror(s) will be reviewed and approved by the PCO prior to contract award as part of the responsibility determination. See FAR

19.702(a)(1) Statutory requirements, regarding failure of the apparent successful Offeror to negotiate and submit a SB Subcontracting Plan or submit a Comprehensive or Commercial SB Subcontracting Plan acceptable to the Contracting Officer. The successful Offeror’s approved

Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into the resultant contract and contractor performance against the plan will be monitored by the

Government during contract execution. Unless the Large Business Offeror has an approved Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan, all goals identified in the proposed Individual Subcontracting Plan shall conform to the DoD’s Subcontracting Goals for FY20 as follows: SB-32%;

SDVOSB – 3%; WOSB – 5%; HUBZONE – 3%; and SDB – 5%.

1. It appears that there is a small business participation goal conflict between Section H.2(a), Section L 5.0 & 5.2 and M3.6 e.

2. Is it correct conclude that the small business participation goal stated in Section L paragraphs 5.0 and 5.2 of 15% is correct as stated?

a. If so, will the Government revise Sections H.2(a) and M.3.6 e to reflect the small business participation goal stated in Section L paragraph

5.0 & 5.2 of 15%?

3. Section L paragraphs 5.0 and 5.2 do not indicate a requirement for small business participation socioeconomic subcategory goals. Is this correct as stated?

H.2

SMALL

BUSINES

S

SUBCON

TRACTIN

G and

Section L

5.0 Small

Business

Participati on

Commitme nt

Document at the

IDIQ Level and

Section L

5.2 Small

Business

Participati on

Commitme nt

Document for DO1 and M3.6

Administra tive

Completen ess

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 19, 73, 74 and 88

1. Yes, Section H.2(a) and M3.6.e. of the RFP has been updated and no longer includes, “Unless the

Large Business Offeror has an approved

Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan, all goals identified in the proposed Individual Subcontracting

Plan shall conform to the DoD’s Subcontracting

Goals for FY20 as follows: SB-32%; SDVOSB –

3%; WOSB – 5%; HUBZONE – 3%; and SDB –

5%.”

2. Yes, the small business participation goal of 15% stated in Section L paragraphs 5.0 and 5.2 is correct.

a. Section H.2(a) and M3.6.e. of the RFP has been updated and no longer includes, “Unless the Large

Business Offeror has an approved Comprehensive

Subcontracting Plan, all goals identified in the proposed Individual Subcontracting Plan shall conform to the DoD’s Subcontracting Goals for

FY20 as follows: SB-32%; SDVOSB – 3%; WOSB

– 5%; HUBZONE – 3%; and SDB – 5%.”

3. Section L paragraphs 5.0 and 5.2 do not indicate a minimum requirement for small business participation socioeconomic subcategory goals.

In the spreadsheet, the government has provided hours by labor category for each Government Provided

Labor Category.

In the spreadsheet, the government has provided subcontract, material and labor base cost.

1. Do the labor hours provided in the Government Provided Labor Categories, Subcontract, Material, and Travel costs represent Government estimates for the effort required to complete the scope?

a. Is this Basis of Estimate for the labor hours and non-labor cost representative of the Government’s

MPC?

Section L N/A Att. 8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

1.The methodology for evaluating cost has changed and updated instructions will be included within the

Final RFP.

The Draft SOW references DV 2H157-1 through 8. The Government distributed only DV 2H157-1 through 6 within the SIM folder. Will the Government be releasing the 7 and 8 system interface manuals?

N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.2.1 a N/A N/A 14

The original delivery of ADVTE did not include device DV 2H157-7 and -8. As part of ADVTE

Next, we will be updating a data item called the

SSDD that will provide the missing information for

DV 2H157-7 and -8.

Section 3.2.1.e defines installation of VOIP devices in DV 2H157-1 through 4. The System Interface

Manual Documents provided, DV 2H157-1 through 4 also refer to an existing VOIP capability. Is the

Government looking for a VOIP telephone solution, a VOIP USB device that plugs into the existing computing infrastructure and leverages the existing ASTI system, or both?

N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.2.1 e N/A N/A 14

The Government requires a VoIP telephone solution that operates outside of federated events. The design of the VoIP solution must meet requirements as specified in SOW para 3.2.1.e and PRF para

3.1.2.4.6

Section L Factor 2.0 Past Performance states:

For this volume, the Offeror shall identify a maximum of five (5) relevant contracts (for the purposes of these instructions, the term contract also refers to delivery order or task order), or those portions of a relevant contract, whose performance falls within five (5) years of the RFP release date. Relevant Past

Performance references contain efforts similar to defined scope and complexity in Section M.B.2.1-

M.B.2.3.

1. For the purpose of the definition of relevancy of a contract Past Performance reference, is a Single

Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (SAIDIQ) contract with multiple Delivery Orders (DO) /

Task Orders (TO) considered a single relevant contract reference defined by all awarded DO / TO contract data for Recency, Scope, Magnitude and Complexity?

2. For the purpose of the definition of relevancy of a contract Past Performance reference, is a Multiple

Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (MAIDIQ) contract with multiple Delivery Orders (DO)

/ Task Orders (TO) considered a single relevant contract reference defined by all awarded DO / TO contract data for Recency, Scope, Magnitude and Complexity?

Section L

2.0

VOLUM

E 3Factor

2.0 Past

Performa nce

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 74

1. No, each individual Delivery Order (DO)/Task

Order (TO) from a Single Award Indefinite

Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract is considered a single contract reference. In other other words, for the purposes of meeting the five relevant contract requirements, we will not give credit for both the underlying contract (a SAIDIQ) and the task orders.

The offeror will need to choose if they want to submit the individual task orders or the basic

(SAIDIQ) contract.

2. No, each individual Delivery Order (DO)/Task

Order (TO) from a Multiple Award Indefinite

Delivery Indefinite Quantity (MAIDIQ) contract is considered a single contract reference.

Section M B. Past Performance states:

Relevancy is defined in Section III., B. Other Evaluation Definitions. Problems not addressed by the

Offeror will be considered to still exist.

1. Is it correct that Section III, B Other Evaluation Definitions is an incorrect reference and should be changed to B. PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS, 1. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY on page

89?

Section M

B. PAST

PERFOR

MANCE

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 86

No, it is not correct that. The detailed definition for

Relevancy is referenced in Part C, Section 6.0, Other Definitions. Section M, B. Past Performance has been updated to state that "Relevancy is defined in Part C, Section 6.0, Other Definitions." The

Relevancy Rating (Table M-3) is employing the use of that definition for the evaluation criteria.

The referenced solicitation is unclear regarding trainer downtime. Are there any constraints regarding the number of devices that can be removed from service for modifications and upgrades at the same time?

Additionally, Page 21 of the RFP lists “Training Device Acceptance – delivered NLT 31 Months

ADC”. Please clarify whether the Government intends to accept each Device incrementally in accordance with the defined CLINs.

N/A Sections

B, C, F N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Offerors are advised the order for taking devices out of service are outlined in SOW Para 3.2.11.

There is one device acceptance following successful completion of IT-C17 and PCA 8 per SOW

Paragraphs 3.2.11.11 and 3.2.15.3.

Section 2.2, Table PP-1 Past Performance Contract Data, row 13 Recency states:

Did Performance Take Place Within Five Years of RFP Issuance Date as shown in Block 5 of the SF33?

Section 2.2, Table PP-1 Past Performance Contract Data, row 14 a Scope states:

For each attribute below, briefly describe how the past performance contract demonstrates relevance and list PWS/SOW references that identify the scope of the past performance contract submitted. Each of the four attributes should include no more than five (5) PWS/SOW references

Section 2.2, Table PP-1 Past Performance Contract Data, row 14 b, Magnitude states:

No minimum dollar value has been defined, but a comparison to the dollar value of the solicitation.

Section 2.2, Table PP-1 Past Performance Contract Data, row 14 c. Complexity states:

For each attribute below, briefly describe how the past performance contract demonstrates relevance and list PWS/SOW references that identify the complexity of the past performance contract submitted. Each of the six attributes should include no more than five (5) PWS/SOW references for each attribute.

1. For the purpose of the definitions of Recency, Scope, Magnitude and Complexity for contract data of a Past Performance reference, is a Single Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (SAIDIQ) contract with multiple Delivery Orders (DO) /

Task Orders (TO) considered a single relevant contract reference defined by all of the awarded DO / TO contract?

2. For the purpose of the definitions of Recency, Scope, Magnitude and Complexity for contract data of a Past Performance reference, is a Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (MAIDIQ) contract with multiple Delivery Orders

(DO) / Task Orders (TO) considered a single relevant contract reference defined by all of the awarded DO / TO contract?

Section L

2.2

Contract

Data

Table PP-

1 Past

Performa nce

Contract

Data

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 76

Block 5 of the SF 33 (or RFP) will be the date that the Final RFP is issued.

1. No, each individual Delivery Order (DO)/Task

Order (TO) from a Single Award Indefinite

Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract is considered a single contract reference. In other other words, for the purposes of meeting the five relevant contract requirements, we will not give credit for both the underlying contract (a SAIDIQ) and the task orders.

The offeror will need to choose if they want to submit the individual task orders or the basic

(SAIDIQ) contract.

2. No, each individual Delivery Order (DO)/Task

Order (TO) from a Multiple Award Indefinite

Delivery Indefinite Quantity (MAIDIQ) contract is considered a single contract reference.

The Draft Performance Spec, Appendix A, requires design, development, integration, and testing of the

Visual System (VS) for the NECC within Devices 2H157-1, 2H157-2, 2H157-3, and 2H157-4. In addition, the Draft SOW includes design tasks in 3.1.3a, 3.2.1a, 3.2.1c and 3.2.1d. Will the

Government consider CPFF for tasks that require design and development?

N/A N/A N/A N/A

3.1.3a, 3.2.1a, 3.2.1c and 3.2.1d

Appendix

A ADVTE

NECC

Visual

System

Performanc e

Specificatio n Paragraph

N/A

11 and 14 of

SOW, page

66 of

Attachment

No, the Government considers the design tasks to be well defined and low risk.

The current ADVTE-Next NAICS Code 541512 (Computer Systems Design Services) will exclude certain contractors as a Small Business Concern (SBC) who typically fall into that category for many NAWC-TSD solicitations, and thus impose Small Business Individual Subcontracting Plan (ISP) requirements on entities that have been historically considered SBCs themselves. Would the Government consider a comparable NAICS code that does not so greatly limit SBC status in order to maximize competition and more align to the stated requirement of the solicitation? COMMENT: Many traditional SBCs, to include awardees under TSC-IV Small Business Set-Aside will likely not qualify as an SBC for NAICS 541512. Under NAICS 541519 (Other Computer Related Services), many of these companies would be considered an SBC as an Information Technology Value-Added Reseller (ITVAR).

From sba.gov:

NAICS code 541519 – An Information Technology Value Added Reseller (ITVAR) provides a total solution to information technology acquisitions by providing multi-vendor hardware and software along with significant value-added services. Significant value-added services consist of, but are not limited to, configuration consulting and design, systems integration, installation of multi-vendor computer equipment, customization of hardware or software, training, product technical support, maintenance, and end user support. For purposes of Government procurement, an information technology procurement classified under this exception and 150-employee size standard must consist of at least 15% and not more than 50% of value-added services, as measured by the total contract price.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

No, the Government has already conisdered various

NAICS codes. The Government selected NAICS

Code 541512 -Computer Systems Design Services because it more appropriately characterizes the predominance of requirements under the ADVTE-

Next IDIQ. Additionally, NAICS Code 541512 has been reviewed and concurred with by the

NAWCTSD Office of Small Business Programs and the Small Business Administration Procurement

Center Representative.

Will the Government allow bidders to conduct site surveys of existing ADVTE systems ahead of the

RFP? This will allow a better understanding of the scope of effort for upgrading technology.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

No, Government will not allow additional site surveys prior to the RFP. A site visit was held as part of Industry Day on 24-25 Oct 2019. The

Government will not be scheduling additional site surveys.

Would the Government be able to share a draft acquisition schedule for anticipated RFP release, proposal due date, award date and DO1 Period of Performance?

General N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

No. Official procurement information related to

NAWCTSD procurement schedules are available at the bi-monthly PALTs. Within NAVAIR Clause

5252.247-9504 of the DO1 contract the schedule for completion is provided: "Training Device

Acceptance – delivered NLT 31 Months ADC."

Will the Government share training exercise schedules with the Final RFP to enable Industry to more accurately predict software and hardware upgrade scheduling?

N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.2.11 N/A N/A 38

No, we will not publish dates of future training exercises. The Government expects the successful offeror's ADVTE Next schedule to project required times needed for the upgrades, and the Government will coordinate those down times with the sites

Pertaining to post-contract award activities, what impacts to conferences and reviews does the

Government foresee due to COVID-19? Industry will be assessing risks, but will need to plan for scheduling and/or travel impacts.

N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.2.4 N/A N/A 24

NAWCTSD will follow guidance from HQ USN and NAVAIR for Health Protection Condictions

(HPCON), which can be found at https://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/ndw/om/covid-

19-health-protection-condition.html

Purpose of travel will dictate if conditions warrant per the HPCON. While restrictive Health Protection conditions are in place, we will maximize use of teleconference and online meetings to the extent possible, and only mission essential travel will be conducted by the Government; meetings that must take place at Goverment facilities will be restricted to minimal in-person participation or, if capabilities exist, conducted via online collaboration services.

Given the COVID-19 challenges of working in a virtual environment, would the Government consider providing Industry with a proposal development period of 90 days?

General N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

No, the Government will set a suitable timeline for response based on what we determine to be appropriate for the length and complexity of the

RFP, coupled with the fact that the Draft RFP was published on 5 Oct 2020 which should provide ample familiarity and preparation time for the final

RFP response. Should pandemic conditions impose further restrictions on Government and/or

State/Federal restrictions on commercial companies' ability to conduct work, we will take that into consideration as those conditions arise.

Section M, 3.0 Evaluation Factors for award, A. TECHNICAL states:

The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the Offeror's understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical

Proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offerors approach. The evaluation will also include an assessment of the Offeror’s LAN/WAN

Configuration and Testing, VOIP Design, Visual System Approach and Computer Software Rights.

1. Request the Government provide the relative weighting of each of the four (4) Elements to determine the combined technical risk rating as defined in table M-2?

Section

M, 3.0

Evaluatio n Factors for award, A.

TECHNI

CAL

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 82

The Government will not be assigning relative weighting of individual elements under the

Technical Factor.

3.2.11.1 Baseline Configuration Audit (BCA) d states

The contractor shall:

d. Perform the BCA by executing the Government-provided ADVTE-ATP-NOV-19.

1. What is the typical/historical time and number of contractor personnel required to execute the

ADVTE-ATP?

Typically, this information is included in the ATP preamble.

The information is needed to plan, and price travel expenses associated with the execution of the

ADVTE Next contract.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

3.2.11.1

Baseline

Configurati on Audit

(BCA)d

N/A 39 The Goverment does not have historical data for

ADVTE ATP execution.

1. Is the Government planning on having an industry day for the DRFP or the RFP?

2. Is the Government planning on having a site visit prior to the release of the RFP?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

No, a previosly held industry day on 24-25 Oct

2019 was conducted at Marine Corps Air Station

Miramar. Additionally, the Government held a One-on-One session with Industry on 13, 15 Nov 2019 *

1. No, the government is not planning on having an

Industry Day for the DRFP or RFP. A previously held industry day on 25-25 Oct 2019 was conducted prior to DRFP release. 2. No, the Government is not planning on site visits prior to RFP release. A previously held industry day on 25-25 Oct 2019 was conducted which included a site visit to a representative ADVTE training device (2H157-4 at

MCAS Mirimar).

Government requires Personnel Security - CAC access for all DOD installations? Site survey?

Meetings/Conferences?

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Section

3.1.2.2 N/A N/A 9

Yes, CAC is required for Prime and subcontractor personnel that will have a valid, recurring need for access to two or more military installations in order to conduct work supporting the ADVTE program

(subject to other restrictions that will be detailed in a CAC application to be provided to the contract awardee security office).

45 Government requires additional Background Checks? N/A N/A N/A N/A

Section

3.1.2.2, Para

N/A N/A 9

The contractor has to have the appropriate background checks/investigations and security clearance to perform this work as required in the

DD-254.

Land Combat is mentioned under the requirements section. Considering USMC ATS has tactical application and simulators involved, are there any "Air Combat" requirements for Air-to-Air employment, Surface to Air Threat Awareness (IADS/SEAD), Electronic Warfare, and JTAC integration?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A para A.3 requiremen ts

N/A 63

No, the question references PRF Para A.3.1.3.1.9.6, which specifies requirements for visual display of

Land scenes/actions for the Visual Display System

(VDS), similar to others listed under Para

A.3.1.3.1.9 (Formation Flight, Aerial Refueling, Shipboard Landing, etc.). The PRF VDS appendix is inherently an "Air Combat" specification, and such depictions are embedded in other requirements

(e.g., Para 3.1.3.2.7, et al). Air-to-air, surface-to-air threat awareness, and electronic warfare are a function of specific Type/Model/Series trainers requirements, and those mission types are handled by their Host/TEn (TEn being the SAF).

1. For CLIN 8003, is the intent to exercise the CLS Option multiple times as each trainer upgrade is delivered?

2. If so, should additional CLINs be defined for CLS for each Device?

N/A Section B N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10

No, the intent is for the CLS OPTION CLIN to be exercised only once. There will be one delivery of the entire system which will encompass system DV

2H157-1 through 8.

3.1.2.4.7 is titled "Aural-cue and inter-communications system (ICS)", but the document does not say anymore further regarding aural cues.

Can you please provide more information about aural cues? What types of sounds are needed and under what conditions are they played?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.1.2.4.7 N/A 15

I. PRF paragraph 3.1.2.4.7 doesn't have aural-cue related requirements. Paragraph header was changed to "Radios and Inter-Communications system (ICS)."

II. No aural-cue requirements are being added.

3.1.2.5.1.2-(a) says the NECC IOS radio control page shall "have the functionality to update the active transmitting radio panel to specify the simulator's: device ID, TEn call sign, frequency...".

Does the IOS station have the capability to monitor the real-time state of the radios in the ATS flight sims?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.1.2.5.1.2 N/A 22

Yes, the IOS station does have the capability to monitor the real-time state of the radios for networked ATS flight sims.

3.1.2.5.1.2-(e) Says the NECC IOS radio control page shall "Allow the user to update the radio frequency preset description, frequency, and modulation in real-time.”

Does the IOS control station have the capability to control the radio parameter settings of the remote

ATS training devices?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.1.2.5.1.2 N/A 22

No, the NECC IOS control station does not have the capability to control the radio parameter settings of the remote ATS training devices.

3.1.2.5.1.2-(a) says the NECC IOS radio control page shall "have the functionality to update the active transmitting radio panel to specify the simulator's: device ID, TEn call sign, frequency...".

Does the IOS station have the capability to monitor the real-time state of the radios in the ATS flight sims?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.1.2.5.1.2 N/A 22

Yes, the IOS station does have the capability to monitor the real-time state of the radios for networked ATS flight sims.

Can the Government provide more detail on what is meant by reuse and reintegrate the existing TEn computational subsystem hardware and software?

N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.2.1.1.2 N/A N/A 19

The existing TEn computational subsystem will not be tech-refreshed. Therefore, the TEn computers must be reused and rackmounted into the new racks.

1. Will the Government be providing the Virtual Battle Space software as GFI?

2. Which version of VBS is required for the ADVTE Next program? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

3.1.2.4.5

VBS

Station

N/A 15

1. Yes, VBS SW will be Government Provided

Software (GFS). PRF para 3.1.2.4.5.b was updated to specify it will be GFS provided SW.

2. The GOV will provide the latest VBS SW available at time of SRR. PRF para 3.1.2.4.5 was updated to reflect a new requirement: Utilize the latest GFS provided VBS SW as of SRR.

3.2.1 ADVTE Equipment located at 2D and 3D Marine Aviation Wing (MAW) Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), Marine

Aviation Training System Sites (MATSS), and Battle Sim Centers (BSCs) d SOW states:

Design, document, integrate, test, validate, install, and deliver a technical refresh to the existing ADVTE equipment (i.e., computational subsystems, devices) at MCAS, MATSS, and BSC buildings that meets the requirements specified in performance specification PMA205/ADVTE-NEXT-SPEC-PRF-190063 for the following system devices (DV):

(1) DV 2H157-1 located at MCAS and MATSS Cherry Point, NC,

(2) DV 2H157-2 located at MCAS and MATSS Miramar, CA,

(3) DV 2H157-3 located at MCAS and MATSS Camp Pendleton, CA,

(4) DV 2H157-4 located at MCAS and MATSS New River, NC,

(5) DV 2H157-5 located at MCAS and MATSS Yuma, AZ,

(6) DV 2H157-6 located at MCAS and MATSS Beaufort, SC,

(7) DV 2H157-7 within the MAGTFTC BSC located at MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, CA,

(8) DV 2H157-8 within II MEF BSC located at MCB Camp Lejeune, NC

This paragraph describes a technical refresh of the ADVTE equipment. The only hardware items identified in the SOW and

PRF that are for reuse are the TEn, DIS Bridge, and NASMP Bridge.

1. Will the Government provide clarification of the term "devices" that are to be included in the technical refresh?

2. Table A 1 Major Assemblies Parts List by Reference Designation in the System Interface Manuals include numerous components that in general terms would be considered "devices". For example: Does the tech refresh encompass video splitters, video matrix systems, ASTi components, racks, VTC Cameras, GPS antenna and GPS antenna signal distribution unit, NTPS GPS receiver, GPS receiver, etc. The requirement as written is unclear and cannot be accurately estimated.

N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.2.1d N/A N/A 14

1. "Devices" refers to the Training Device that constitutes each site/NECC ("DV" = Device, as in

DV 2H157-1, etc).

2. The technical refresh encompasses the device's equipment, components, cables, furniture, etc. For clarity, SOW paragraph 3.2.1.d, 3.2.1.1, and 3.2.1.2 have been updated. Unless the Government specifies to reuse a component, the technical refresh requires new equipment to be delivered and encompasses ALL components and cables necessary to provide the entire solution.

The video capture system records video streams from the VBS and Surveillance viewing subsystems.

1. How many separate streams from each of these subsystems is being recorded simultaneously?

2. What is the data format for these video streams?

The video capture system is to be controlled by the IOS debrief page.

1. Does the IOS software currently support this functionality?

The video capture system shall store no less than 150 hours of recorded video.

1. Is the 150-hour requirement the total of all recorded streams or 150 "training" hours where multiple streams are being recorded?

This information is necessary to scope and spec the Video Capture hardware and software identified in this requirement.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

3.1.2.4.8

Video

Capture

N/A 15

1. One video stream from each subsystem.

2. The resulting data format depends on the design chosen.

3. Yes, via the Host SW.

4. The 150 hour requirement is the total of all recorded streams.

3.1.2.4.2 Host states:

The Host subsystem for systems DV 2H157-1 thru 4 shall:

a. Have a real-time scheduler that maintains the following functionality and exhibit the following characteristics:

(1) Management and control of the simulation environment in real-time for both standalone and networked modes of operation.

(2) Real-time execution of simulation modules.

(3) Global data management.

(4) Offline development.

(5) Command line control.

(6) Runtime statistics capture.

(7) Programmable processes, tables, clocks, modes, callbacks, and environment variables.

(8) Allow Bind processes to individual CPUs.

(9) Error capture and handling.

(10) Re-configure load operation without having to re-compile the load.

b. Provide 150 hours or more of debrief recording capacity.

1. Does the host run at 60Hz?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.1.2.4.2

Host N/A 14 Yes, the host runs at 60Hz.

3.1.2.4 Computational Subsystems and Devices states

Computational subsystems and devices shall be rack-mounted, inclusive of the TEn subsystem.

According to the System Interface Manuals provided as GFI, the TEn computers are currently installed in the Ops Stations in the NECC.

1. Are these computers rack mountable? There is another requirement to reuse and reintegrate the TEn computational systems.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

3.1.2.4

Computatio nal

Subsystems and

Devices

N/A 13

The TEn computational subsystems are rack mountable as long as the correct hardware (e.g., rails, rackmounts) are procured.

58 Is Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) an acceptable standard to meet the VoIP requirement? N/A N/A N/A N/A Section 3.2.1 N/A N/A 14 As long as the protocol standard used meets the

RFP requirements, it will be an acceptable standard.

59 If this VoIP networking is performing radio communication, how many different radios are required? N/A N/A N/A N/A Section 3.2.1 N/A N/A 14 The VoIP is not intended to perform radio communication.

60 Does the VoIP system need to be functional when the trainer is not operational? N/A N/A N/A N/A Section 3.2.1 N/A N/A 14

The VoIP system needs to be operational when the trainer is not operational. VoIP requirements can be found within SOW paragraph 3.2.1.e and PRF paragraph 3.1.2.4.6.

What is the expectation of the communication across the devices? ICS only? Radio style communication where proper frequency and range information is required?

N/A N/A N/A N/A Section 3.2.1 N/A N/A 14

The intent is for two types of communication:

VOIP for telephonic, and continued use of ASTi for radio/ICS communication.

62 Is there any networking of Comms currently functional or are they all stand-alone devices? N/A N/A N/A N/A Section 3.2.1 N/A N/A 14

If this question is in reference to the VoIP system, there is no current VoIP telephonic capability between/across all the specific locations mentioned in SOW para 3.2.1.e. There is networking of communication functionality contained in other subsytems.

Does the existing Trainer Communication system have any spare audio channels to capture radio and/or ICS audio?

N/A N/A N/A N/A Section 3.2.1 N/A N/A 14

No, there are no spare audio channels. However, per

PRF paragraph 3.1.2.4.7, the Radio and Inter-comm system (ICS) is being replaced with new equipment and will result with the removal of the existing system.

What type of Comms system is currently installed on the existing devices? (i.e. ASTI’s Telestra 4, ASTI’s DACS, Simphonics V+ (XP or Windows 7), or other) N/A N/A N/A N/A Section 3.2.1 N/A N/A 14

Currently, the Radio and ICS system installed on

DV 2H157-1 thorugh 4 is an ASTi PC-ver that's installed on a Windows XP Virtual Machine.

3.1.2.4.16.4 SAS Workstation states:

The SAS workstation shall:

a. Have a classified SAS workstation for systems DV 2H157-1 and 2 that:

(1) Access the classified network devices (i.e., routers, firewalls, intrusion prevention systems, and cybersecurity-enabled switches) located across ADVTE.

(2) Access the classified syslog servers located across ADVTE.

(3) Access the classified VMs on the SAS servers located across ADVTE.

(4) Have and utilize a dual layer Blu-ray burner.

(5) Have the GFS GemOne software installed at system DV 2H157-1 configured to manage the ADVTE

TACLANEs located across 2D MAW.

(6) Have the GFS GemOne software installed at system DV 2H157-2 configured to manage the ADVTE

TACLANEs located across 3D MAW.b. Have a classified SAS workstation for systems DV 2H157-3 and 4 that:

(1) Access the classified network devices (i.e., routers, firewalls, intrusion prevention systems, and cybersecurity-enabled switches) located across ADVTE.

(2) Access the classified syslog servers located across ADVTE.

(3) Access the classified VMs on the SAS servers located across ADVTE.

(4) Have and utilize a dual layer Blu-ray burner.

c. Have an unclassified SAS workstation for systems DV 2H157-1 thru 4 that:

(1) Access the unclassified network devices (i.e., routers, firewalls, intrusion prevention systems, and cybersecurity-enabled switches) located across ADVTE.

(2) Access the unclassified syslog servers located across ADVTE.

(3) Access the unclassified VMs on the SAS servers located across ADVTE.

(4) Utilize a dual layer Blu-ray burner.

1. Is the Government planning on providing the GemOne software as GFI?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

3.1.2.4.16.4

SAS

Workstatio n

N/A 19

Yes, GemOne SW will be provided as Government

Furnished Software (GFS) as specified in PRF para

3.1.2.4.17.4.a.(5)

For Technical Refresh of the ADVTE equipment, can the Government provide existing drawings, figures, photographs, Etc. of the existing equipment and sites?

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Section 1, Para 1 N/A N/A 1

The Government has provided drawings as part of

GFI with the Draft RFP release.

Is there a defined SAF/CGF model library to integrate with the image generator for Red and Blue forces?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A para A.3 requiremen ts

N/A 63 The SOW paragraph 3.2.1.1.1.4 describes the possible approaches to model library reuse. The availability of the model library for integration and the level of effort depends on the offeror's approach.

Is there a defined SAF/CGF model library to integrate with the image generator for Red and Blue forces?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A para A.3 requiremen ts

N/A 63

<<<repeated question #67>>>

The SOW paragraph 3.2.1.1.1.4 describes the possible approaches to model library reuse. The availability of the model library for integration and the level of effort depends on the offeror's approach.

1. Please provide a copy of PMA205MC-SEP190086-V1.0, ADVTE Next Systems Engineering Plan

(SEP) (31 January 2020).

N/A N/A N/A 2.1 N/A N/A N/A 9

A copy of the SEP will not be provided. The reference to the SEP was removed.

bLK 16.5 states “BLK 13: THIRD SUBMISSION SHALL BE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF

PCA-8.”

PCA-8 is not defined in SOW 190062. Please clarify.

N/A Section B N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10

1. The interim fleet assessment period for DV 2H157-1 through 4 and 6 through 8 commences after the associated

PCA for the device through PCA-8. DV 2H157-5 is the very last device on our schedule of…