Questions_and_Answers_011818.pdf

Q1: In several places the solicitation uses “Consortium Management Agreement,” which could mean EITHER “Consortium Membership Agreement” or “Management Services Agreement.” Please clarify that the reference throughout for the agreement between the consortium and its members is the Consortium Membership Agreement, which is used in the OTA Agreement, Section 6 Definitions (Page 2).

A1: Changed to Consortium Membership Agreement in all areas.

Q2: On Page 3, In Section 2.3 Management of the Consortium, Para (d), the fees proposed to manage the consortium to recover consortium and Government costs will depend heavily on the research project award funding that flows through the OTA. Would the Government provide an estimated funding profile for program years 1-3 upon which the fee structures can be analyzed? If the Government cannot provide such a profile, shall the Offeror propose a candidate funding profile against which these fees can be estimated?

A2: The Government estimates $20m a year will be applied to the OTA for the first three years.

Q3: On Page 5, Evaluation Criteria 2.3 Management of the Consortium, the intent of the following clause is unclear: “whether the Consortium Agreement will lead to successful performance under the Agreement.” Does the “Consortium Agreement” mean the CMA, and the “Agreement” mean the OTA? If so, please clarify the cause and effect relationship the Government is requesting the Offerors to describe when addressing how the CMA should relate to the OTA in this criteria.

A3: The Consortium Membership Agreement, and the terms therein, will impact how the Consortium operates in response to prototype projects and may affect its ability to attract and retain members. The section has been reworded.

Q4: There is no mention of if/where to include other pages normally provided in other solicitations (e.g., table of contents, list of acronyms, executive summary, compliance matrix, appendices, etc.). Should Offerors not submit such materials at all, or if permitted, where should such materials be included (and will they count against the individual page count limits)?

A4: This information is not required and as such is not accounted for in the page count. If a company chooses to submit this information it will not be evaluated.

Q5: Page 2, definition of Cost Sharing: Statutory language in 10 USC 2371b says “significant” rather than “meaningful.” We recommend changing the draft OTA language to be consistent with the terminology in governing law.

A5: Changed

Q6: Page 6, Para 8 (d) states: “The Consortium shall accomplish the overall management, including technical, programmatic, reporting, financial and administrative matters, of the coordinated prototype program established under this Agreement. The Consortium shall be responsible for the overall day-to-day management of Government-selected projects and all prototype projects issued to the Consortium under this Agreement.” Typically, the Government retains technical management of projects awarded under an OTA. Does the Government, in fact, desire that the Consortium assume this responsibility (and hence include its costs for performing these tasks)?

A6: The Base OT Agreement has been modified to reword the paragraph since the intent was not for the Consortium to be responsible for overall technical management. However, the Consortium and its management firm are responsible for ensuring the business operations of the Consortium, including addressing issues and concerns that arise throughout the life of the Base OT Agreement.

Q7: Page 11, para 14(c): Advanced Technology International, the Consortium Manager (CM) proposed for our Consortium, has not seen this language in any of the other seven OTAs they manage. They are concerned this requirement might be a deterrent to some prospective non-traditional members who are considering whether or not to join.

A7: This clause has been removed.

Q8: On Page 25, Para 26(2), the language infers the Consortium is responsible for cost share. We believe the requirement for cost share should fall to the individual Consortium Member whose project is being funded. Please clarify.

A8: Changed to Consortium Member. Details will be included in individual prototype projects.

Q9: On Page 25, para 27(c), this requirement potentially poses significant financial risk to the Consortium Manager in that a final decrement of one-third of the total cost of the project, executed upon project completion, would cause a corresponding reduction in the costs reimbursable to the Consortium Manager that would not be recoverable. This is would require the Consortium Manager, which is not involved in certifying the significant contribution being made by the non-traditional defense contractor, to incur a penalty it had no role in determining. Please clarify whether this is the Government’s intent regarding compensating the Consortium Manager for services rendered during the project.

A9: The Government does not agree that this necessarily results in the Consortium Manager losing fee, as that will depend on the terms of the Consortium Member Agreement and the fee structures proposed. The agreement is between the Government and the Consortium and not with the individual members of the Consortium, so how the Consortium Manager ensures it is properly reimbursed in this situation is not dictated by the Government.

Q10: Please clarify whether the solicitation is for vendors who want to be consortium manager, or for vendors who want to be a member of the consortium.

A10: The solicitation is to establish both the Consortium and associated Consortium Management Firm, not to recruit members to a Consortium.

Q11: Can you briefly explain how the consortium will be set up once a manager is chosen? Do we need to be teamed with a potential manager prior to their submission on Jan 15, or does the consortium membership come after the manager is chosen?

A11: As stated in the announcement, the Government is selecting the Consortium with its proposed management firm, so it's a package deal. There are also evaluation criteria concerning the membership of the Consortium.

Q12: How much annual funding for research & development leading to prototype projects is projected for this opportunity?

A12: The projected annual funding at this time is approximately $20m.

Q13: Is the Consortium Manager responsible for Technical Program Management, Performance and Schedule for the projects and thus would apply cost incurred based upon individual project awards scope for this management?

A13: The Government is not specifically directing what arrangement the Consortium manager and the Consortium have. Instead, the Government will evaluate whatever arrangement is proposed in making its selection decision.

Q14: I saw the RFI you released… Would this pertain to diver technologies? Our company has a handheld diver navigation, communication, and sonar capability geared towards NSW and EOD. Does would this fall under the RFI, or is this more specific to submarines, MDA and other “Big Navy” endeavors?

A14: The requirement currently posted is to establish the base OT agreement and is not for any specific prototype project. Once awarded, individual prototype projects will be competed under this agreement and may or may not include diver technologies, which would fit within the scope of the base OT agreement.

Q15: Is the request for a consortium manager as well as the development of a new consortium to support the requirements outlined in the solicitation?

A15: The posted request is for the Consortium and its associated Consortium Management Firm to support the competition of future rapid prototyping requirements within the scope of the OT. The Consortium could be an existing one or a new one.

Q16: Could you please provide the incumbent contract number? If not, is this a new requirement?

A16: This is a new requirement. Please note that this is a single requirement and shows up twice due to incorrect numbering on the initial posting. The correct numbering is N666041890001.

Q17: What are your thoughts in way of the management role?

A17: Without further information the Government cannot answer this question.

Q18: Do you have a preferred approach for management compensation? There is no cost proposal identified.

A18: The Government does not have a preferred approach in mind and will evaluate whatever approach is submitted.

Q19: What is the total dollar threshold for the vehicle you’re intending to create?

A19: he projected annual funding at this time is approximately $20m.

Q20: Do you have a que of prototype projects in mind or will it be ad hoc? If ad hoc, what is your government process to solicit government customers?

A20: Prototype projects are projected to be solicited starting soon after award on either a scheduled or ad hoc basis. The Government’s process is internal.

Q21: When you’re asking about technical experience, are you concerned primarily about the consortium management entity or the collective membership? If the latter, would you consider weighting the consortium managers ability to recruit new members with relevant experience, as technical experience?

A21: The Government is concerned with the technical experience of the Consortium and its membership. Recruiting and retention of technical expertise across the Consortium is already an evaluation criteria under the Management factor.

Q22: Do you have a list of interested parties? Can you provide it?

A22: The Government will not be providing a list of interested parties.

Q23: Do you already have a short list of potential preferred industry partners you are working with? If so, are you open to new entrants in this area?

A23: No, the Government does not have a preferred list of industry partners.

Q24: Given the holidays, is there any chance you might consider extending the deadline to allow for response?

A24: The deadline is extended to 1400 Eastern on January 22, 2018.

-----------------------------------------01/18/2018 update begins below----------------------------------------------------

Q25: Our company only intends to address our software in the "Virtualization" capability. The other areas don't apply to our business. Is this the appropriate forum for that type of response or are you really looking for something like a general contractor first before looking at the individual areas of expertise?

A25: The requirement currently posted is to establish the base OT agreement and is not for any specific prototype project or technology area. Once awarded, individual prototype projects will be competed under this agreement and may or may not include software virtualization.

Q26: I was wondering if the area of chaotic waveforms for underwater acoustic communication, ranging, and other applications might be of some interest to this BAA?

A26: The requirement currently posted is to establish the base OT agreement and is not for any specific prototype project or technology area. Once awarded, individual prototype projects will be competed under this agreement and may or may not include the area of chaotic waveforms.

Q27: If we have relevant companies with signed LOIs, can we cite their technical experience in our proposal or do they have to fully execute the CMA?

A27: Signed LOIs are sufficient.