Formal RFP Questions Answers - 05 Jan 11.doc

SUBJECT: FA9422-11-R-0002 0004 (7 Jan 11) AMENDMENT 5 to Q&A

NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE TRACKING SYSTEM (NETS) - NEST

CS/Phone: Joe C. Castillo / 505-853-5137 Date: 07 January 2011

The purpose of this posting to FedBizOps is to address questions received in response to the formal RFP that was released on 20 Dec 10. If your question(s) have not been effectively addressed please contact the contracting officer at donna.heinz@kirtland.af.mil immediately so that we may provide clarifying information.

In addition, we have established a telecom for all interested vendors to participate in so that we can clarify our goal and intent with this contract effort to ensure adequate competition is received. We highly encourage all interested parties to attend.

The telecom is scheduled for Tuesday, 11 Jan 11, at 10:00 am (MST). To participate call the following number: (505) 853-3259. This is a meet-me-line that can handle up to 25 participants. We anticipate the meeting lasting 15 minutes. Should you call in at 10:00 am (MST) and not be able to connect because we have maximized the line (ie, have more than 25 participants connected), please contact Francine Chavez immediately at 505-853-2483 to let her know and we will conduct a second session at 10:30 am (MST).

1. RFP RESPONSES

CONTRACTING

RFP #1: Will you be accepting advanced copies of the Executive Summary?

Answer: The entire proposal must be delivered at one time. Should offerors want to deliver their “entire” proposal in advance of the 25 Jan 11 due date, they will be accepted. However, please note, proposals will not be evaluated until after the 25 Jan 11 due date. The due date of 2:00 pm (MST) on 25 Jan 11 remains unchanged.

RFP #2: Appendix 1 of the RFP offers an example of the Cross Reference matrix; is it allowable to alter the Matrix format while providing all required information?

Answer: Yes, altering the format is acceptable as long as all required information is presented.

RFP #3: Is it acceptable for CDRL A001 to be an attachment to Volume II, and then referenced in Subfactor 1.2: Product Capability?

Answer: Yes RFP #4: Is it acceptable for the resumes to be attachments to Volume II, and then referenced in Subfactor 1.1?

Answer: Yes RFP #5: Table 2.2 of ITO implies no paper, and in some cases, no electronic versions of parts of the proposal. Is this accurate? We would assume all parts would require electronic and paper for continuity.

Answer: Yes, all parts shall be submitted with one electronic copy and paper copies. The electronic copy shall be a CD and the paper copies shall consist of: Volume I, IIa, and IIb offerors shall submit 3 paper copies to include an original and 2 copies, and for Volume III and IV offerors shall submit one original paper copy.

In addition, Table 2.2 will be revised to reflect that Volume II, titled Technical Capability, is simply a “header” and there is no submittal – this submittal consists of Vol IIa and Vol IIb only. The table in the Formal RFP will be revised as described below in order to make these issues more clear.

Table 2.2 - Proposal Organization

Number

RFP #6: The page count for the ‘Executive Summary’ is stated to be 2 pages; is the ‘Master Table of Contents’ considered part of the 2-page limit?

Answer: No it is not considered part of the 2-page limit. See paragraph 2.2.1, Page Limitations, of Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-01 on page 10 of 67 of the Formal RFP.

RFP #7: Specific instructions are provided to define page, table, chart, graph, figure information, but are expressly stated as NOT applying to product/technology literature provide in Vol II (b). How is “product/technology literature” defined?

Answer: Product/Literature is defined as marketing or technical literature that you currently have in use to either promote or sell your product. It is generalized marketing information that you would hand to any customer interested in learning more about your product(s). The RFP will be revised to include this definition.

RFP #8: “Page Limit” column states, “Section B of the Contract.” It is stated that “ … the Cost proposal shall consist of the offeror's proposed cost/price and shall be listed in CLIN 0001 within Section B of the Contract Documentation.” Please clarify the page limit for the Cost proposal.

Answer: In Section B of the contract, fill in your overall firm-fixed-price for the entire effort on CLIN 0001. If you receive a contract, this is the amount the government will pay for the effort (includes demonstration and all data/reports). No other costs will be reimbursed. No further information is required regarding your costs.

RFP #9: Addendum to FAR 52.212-01, Instructions to Offerors, Table 2.2 - Proposal Organization does not a list a page limit on Volume II, Technical Capability. Questions: What is this limit? Does this limit include the 15-limit on the Demonstration Plan?

Answer: Table 2.2 will be revised to reflect that Volume II, titled Technical Capability, is simply a “header” and there is no submittal – this submittal consists of Vol IIa and Vol IIb only. The table in the Formal RFP will be revised as described in the response to #5 above.

RFP #10: Addendum to FAR 52.212-01, Instructions to Offerors, Table 2.2 - Proposal Organization while paragraph 5 lists “Cost/Price” as “Volume IV” instead of “Volume III.” Question: Can you confirm which volume number is correct for Cost/Price?

Answer: Volume III is cost/price (Section B of the Contract); Volume IV is the remaining contract documentation. Unfortunately we do not see it listed that way in 5.0 so we fail to see the discrepancy.

RFP #11: Can Contractors submit volumes via email or do the volumes need to be submitted hard copy?

Answer: The paper copies required in Table 2.2 must be submitted via mail, FEDEX, UPS, etc. The electronic copies must be submitted via CD as required by paragraph 2.3, Electronic Copies, of Addendum to FAR 52.212-01, Instructions to Offerors, page 12 of 67 of the Formal RFP. The paper copies and CD’s shall be delivered together. Email is not authorized for proposal submission within these instructions.

RFP #12: If Contractors are required to submit electronically and via mail, which means of delivery constitutes the delivery submission date?

Answer: See response to #11 above. Electronic does not mean via email – it means on a CD which is mailed and delivered in a binder with your paper copies at the same time.

RFP #13: May companies submit proposals for two or more Product Outcomes? If so, will these be treated as separate contracts or as one single contract?

Answer: If a single product satisfies more than one product outcome, that should be submitted as a single proposal and will be executed as a single contract. However, if you have more than one product that you would like to demonstrate, IAW FAR 52.212-01, Instructions to Offerors, paragraph (e) titled Multiple offers, then separate proposals shall be submitted (one for each individual product). These proposals would be evaluated separately and be awarded as separate contracts.

RFP #14: May a company submit a proposal that covers more than one Product Outcome or does the AFNWC prefer to limit contracts to single Product Outcomes?

Answer: Yes a company may submit a proposal that covers more than one product outcome. There is no preference to limit contracts to single product outcomes. See #13 above.

TECHNICAL

RFP #1: Is the goal of this project focused on the human machine interface for the hand held device?

Answer: Human/machine interface is one aspect of product outcomes. The Air Force (AF) is exploring technology that can be developed into a system that decreases data input time, increases data reliability, increases security, reduces transcription issues, improves reporting timeliness, and improves command and control while supporting the Air Force’s nuclear enterprise.

RFP #2: Is the design and development of the backend database within the scope of suitable proposal topics for this project?

Answer: Yes, as appropriate to the technology being demonstrated.

RFP #3: Is there currently deployed tracking program and database systems other than the manual entry of chain of custody info on serial numbers?

Answer: Since current knowledge of AF systems is not a contract requirement, this information will not be provided.

RFP #4: What level of component tracking is being targeted (i.e. the focus is at the level of quantity of weapons and type or are you looking to track the major components of each asset)?

Answer: The AF is investigating available technologies to improve tracking of all nuclear components and materials.

RFP #5: Is geospatial tracking desired and does not tracking of each asset while on an aircraft or UAV threaten detection and undermine stealth capabilities?

Answer: There is no predisposed technology tracking solution specified. The government will evaluate all innovative options provided by industry.

RFP #6: Is the preferred technology limited to a hand held biometrically secure reader to enter and store tracking info or is the Air Force amenable to a more elaborate system which utilizes multiple technologies and secure information database access and processing system?

Answer: The government is willing to evaluate all appropriate and innovative technologies provided by industry, since there is no predisposed technological solution.

RFP #7: What is the relative component/asset size value and desired price/asset tracking cost?

Answer: Since current knowledge of AF systems is not a contract requirement, this information will not be provided.

RFP #8: Addendum to FAR 52.212-02, Evaluation Criteria, paragraph M002.1 (1)(d) lists biometric security as requirement separately from the “one or more” requirements subset subparagraph (e). This was different from the draft RFP where it was included only in the subparagraph (as it still is now as well) Question: Does this mean that failure to demonstrate biometric security will eliminate a vendor from the competitive range?

Answer: Addendum to FAR 52.212-02, Evaluation Criteria, paragraph M002.1(1)(d) DOES NOT list biometric security as a requirement. This paragraph states offerors must be able to perform a technology demonstration using a biometric hand-held device. Then IAW paragraph M002.1(1)(e) the device must at minimum meet “one” of the objectives in paragraph 3.0 of the SOO and meet “one” of the product outcomes listed in paragraph 3.1 of the SOO. “Increased security” is simply one of the objectives listed in paragraph 3.0 of the SOO that offerors could demonstrate but they don’t have to. In the Addendum to FAR 52.212-02, Evaluation Criteria, subparagraph 1.2.6 of the Subfactor 1.2: Product Capability section, states offers who can demonstrate a product that has been operational in a secure military environment are given “extra” consideration in the award process. Again, not a requirement – simply get “extra” credit. Based on that explanation, vendors who CANNOT demonstrate biometric security WILL NOT be eliminated from the competition as long as they can demonstrate one or more objectives and one or more outcomes as listed in paragraph 3.0 and 3.1 of the SOO.

To provide further clarification of the term “relevant environment”, as this may be causing some confusion, Paragraph M002.1(1)(d) states the technology demonstration must be of a biometric device in a relevant environment. The RFP will be revised to define relevant environment as: simulation at a contractor facility showing the basic details of what the product can do to track assets and relate those details to the product objectives and outcomes it would satisfy. It is acceptable to accomplish the simulation within a single location.

RFP #9: The DD-254 references SIPRNET access, will SIPRNET access be required for the demonstration at contractor locations?

Answer: No it is not required and the DD254 will be deleted from the RFP.

RFP #10: Does the government have resources allocated to support demonstration preparation and data coordination? If so what organizations are involved?

Answer: No. There is no government data coordination necessary for the technology demonstrations. Contractor demonstrations shall be simulations or whatever manner contractors want to demonstrate the technology using contractor assumptions and contractor data of how the contractor’s device typically works. No AF data or information required. Simply show us what your product can do.

RFP #11: Has sample data been identified for demonstration scenarios?

Answer: Generic data supplied by the contractors will be acceptable to show the ability of the technology to satisfy product outcomes. See #10 above and #12 below for additional information pertaining to this.

RFP #12: Can you provide documentation on the existing chain of custody process? If this information is unavailable is a generic chain of custody process example acceptable?

Answer: A generic chain of custody process example is acceptable for this effort. Should the AF decide to pursue the specific technology being demonstrated, requirements in the follow-on effort would reveal what is necessary regarding chain of custody processes.

RFP #13: Are the reports you require specifically for the chain of custody process? What other reports are required? Are sample reports available for review?

Answer: No specific data is needed in reporting at this time. Generic reporting is acceptable to show the ability of the technology to continuously download, store, upload, view, report and print data to a secure portal and data repository. Regarding reports and data required by this effort: CDRL A001 is your plan and schedule for how the demonstration will be conducted and CDRL A002 is a report that captures “everything” you demonstrated and how it satisfied the product objective(s) and product outcome(s). Contractor format is acceptable.

RFP #14: Are there specific Command and Control systems for data integration?

Answer: Information on current command and control systems is not required for these demonstrations. If a follow-on effort is pursued, the AF will provide interoperability standards.

RFP #15: What type of identification will be used on the items – bar code, IUID mark or other?

Answer: There is no predisposed identification type specified. The government will evaluate all innovative options provided by industry.

RFP#16: For the demonstration is personnel information assumed by whom the Government allows to use a handheld biometric device? Is there a System of Record for verifying user credentials, personnel reliability status, and currency/training qualifications requiring data integration for final delivery?

Answer: Regarding personnel information for the demonstration, no AF data or information is required. Generic data supplied by the contractors will be acceptable to show the ability of the technology to satisfy product outcomes. Regarding the system of record question, since current knowledge of AF systems is not a contract requirement, this information will not be provided.

RFP #17: Are you looking for the biometric function to augment the Common Access Card (for example replacing the pin) or instead of the CAC?

Answer: There is no predisposed outcome as to what will be provided in the demonstrations. Demonstration of either method is acceptable for this effort.

RFP #18: Where will the work/service be completed and/or delivered under this contract; to include Military base names, locations and counties. NMGRT is only applicable to services delivered in the State of New Mexico and will impact the application of NMGRT.

Answer: Performance under the contract will take place at contractor facilities (SOO paragraph 6.0). Treat NMGRT as applicable to your location.

RFP #19: Are there any prejudicial issues involved with demonstrating via an unclassified network?

Answer: The contract is unclassified. The DD254 will be deleted from the RFP and therefore demonstrating via an unclassified network is acceptable.

RFP #20: Is there anything we would have to demonstrate on a classified network?

Answer: No.

RFP #21: Will Customer provide Contractor with any classified property or equipment?

Answer: No.

RFP #22: Does the AFNWC have a preferred method to track equipment (RFID, barcode, GPS device, etc) or is it open to options?

Answer: There is no predisposed outcome as to what will be provided in the demonstrations.

RFP #23: Will the AFNWC provide access to Air Force Global Information Grid (AF-GIG), Integrated Maintenance Data System (IMDS), and the Standard Base Supply System (SBSS) in order to demonstrate the ability in order to develop an interface with these systems? If not, should the concept demonstration simulate an interface?

Answer: No access will be provided to AF systems, therefore simulating an interface is required.