SCCI_Industry_Day_Q&A.pdf

SCCI Industry Day (24 Apr 19) Q&A

1. What are the metrics to determine success of effort going forth?

Answer: Planned metrics were provided in the industry day brief and are pasted here as well:

2. Why not use a BOA that covers things that are FAA certified instead of doing a part by part agreement? (Comment, Slayton will get back with them online)

Answer: This effort is focused on a providing a simpler business pathway between the

Air Force and non-traditional defense vendors. Technical certifications remain with the cognizant engineering authority and are not within the scope of this effort.

3. How does this work with the organic repair system?

Answer: Requirements in this arrangement could originate from challenges experienced in the organic repair line (e.g., obsolete piece parts used in repair process; new repair technologies to reduce condemnations, etc.).

4. Does survivable logistics and expectations factor in to this effort?

Answer: Potentially. Requirements emanating from survivable logistics could require prototyping of emerging technologies with non-traditional defense vendors.

5. Would Program Management count as component or be seen as pass through?

Answer: This would be looked at on a case-by-case basis to see if it complies with 10

USC 1371b(d) and whether program management is considered significant participation.

What is Significant Participation (Key Participant):

Supplying New Key Technology or products

Accomplishing a Significant Amount of the effort

Causing a Material Reduction in the cost or schedule or increase in performance

6. Since TINA does not apply, how do you ensure competition?

Answer: We will utilize White Papers and other methods to ensure competition, and competition is absolutely a requirement to award. The White paper template we would use is similar to ones from other consortiums.

7. Is it beneficial to set up ground rules before the whitepaper? Can we get more of a prescriptive response to whitepaper selection?

Answer: This will be addressed within the collaboration period of individual tasks.

8. Does nontraditional contractor include not for profits/not for profit research institutes;

nontraditional cost share please explain?

Answer: Yes. See answer to number 9 below for cost share information.

9. What does the 1/3 cost sharing refer to overall?

Answer: Cost sharing is required if the task is accomplished by a large, traditional defense vendor. If the task is accomplished by a large, traditional vendor, the large, traditional vendor would be required to contribute 1/3 of the cost of the overall effort.

10. Do other OTAs have consortium managers? Can we post their lessons learned?

Answer: Yes, multiple DoD entities have OTA with consortium managers. We have and will continue to incorporate lessons learned into our consortium.

11. What do we expect from the manager, do they develop a SOW, work through the white papers, how involved will they be?

Answer: The Air Force will develop the Statement of Work (SOW). The OTA manager will be required to maintain a viable pool of members, broadcast requirements to consortium members, facilitate timely and quality member responses, provide adequate whitepapers and proposals to the Air Force, admin, facilitate successful and timely completion of task agreements, and be responsive to Air Force needs in administration of tasks.

12. How do you select the consortium manager?

Answer: The Air Force expects an OTA manager will be selected from industry with consideration of past performance, approach, and cost, as will be detailed selection criteria in the RFP.

13. Have you considered having separate managers for each site: Tinker, Robbins, and Hill?

Answer: The Air Force does not plan to secure separate managers for each location.

However, this could be considered in future, follow-on efforts.

14. How will that process be transparent to ensure no bias in selection of responses sent to

Government?

Answer: The Air Force will evaluate responses in accordance with the evaluation criteria in individual requests for white papers and/or proposals. The details of this process will be covered in the request for proposals.

15. Where do consortium members fall w/I the schedule?

Answer: The selected OTA consortium manager would start building their team after award which is estimated for this calendar year. An OTA consortium manager’s proposal will not be required to have a static list of team on their proposal.

16. What type of contract will be for the consortium manager?

Answer: An agreement issued pursuant to Other Transaction Authority

17. What stage of program is negotiations done?

Answer: If negotiations are required, it would be directly with the Air Force after proposal acceptance.

18. Are we limiting types of $/what types are we planning to use?

Answer: Funding would need to be appropriate for use of prototype

19. How do we stay in contact for this effort?

Answer: All Information will be posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website at:https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/AFMC/OCALCCC/Rapid_DMSMS_Risk_and_Obsolescence_So lutions/listing.html

20. Who would be responsible for broadcasting the requirements?

Answer: The Air Force’s program manager will reach out to the consortium manager who will, in turn, engage the consortium sharing the requirement and facilitating white paper and/or proposal responses.

21. Will there be different memberships based on tasks?

Answer: This will be determined by the consortium manager, based on the tasks.

22. Are there duplicate efforts to the $66M contract amount; or are we trying to move everything into this vehicle?

Answer: There are no duplicate requirements for this projected effort, and there are no plans to move all 448th Supply Chain Management Wing requirements to this vehicle.

23. Will there be a set cycle of requirements for the $66M?

Answer: No set cycle is envisioned at this point. Awards will be made based on requirements as they arise.

24. How is this different than a Multiple Award Contract (MAC)?

Answer: Most MAC’s are Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) based contracts. Also, most MAC’s require a set team of members at award and throughout the contract. In this planned arrangement, consortium members can come and go at any time.

25. Will other services be able to use this vehicle?

Answer: Generally, no, unless there is a shared 448th equity involved with the requirement.

26. What level of oversight does 448th apply to consortium manger?

Answer: The award decision is a Government decision and has a list of factors to rate the Consortium Manager. The OTA agreement between Government and manager will have a list of requirements/duties of the manager.

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/AFMC/OCALCCC/Rapid_DMSMS_Risk_and_Obsolescence_Solutions/listing.html https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/AFMC/OCALCCC/Rapid_DMSMS_Risk_and_Obsolescence_Solutions/listing.html

27. Will the consortium manager charge a fee?

Answer: The consortium manager will be reimbursed via a fee charged to the Air Force on individual tasks. Any fee required to be a member of the consortium manager will be determined by the consortium manager.

28. Consortium members will start to be contacted when; will not have to start with a team?

Answer: The RFP is currently estimated for June 2019 and award is estimated in Sept

2019. The selected OTA consortium manager would start building their team after award which is estimated for this calendar year. An OTA consortium manager’s proposal will not be required to have a static list of team on their proposal.

29. Reverse engineering of legacy aircraft including structural analysis; could that be redone as a part of this OTA effort? How will this legacy IP be handled to include royalties?

Answer: In general, this could be included. Additional details and certification of the appropriate funding type would be required. The handling of Intellectual Property (IP), including royalties, will be addressed on individual tasks. In general, any royalties required to execute a tasks would be considered an allowable cost in the performance of the task.

30. Is there a guarantee that the RE data owned by the Government will be used to compete after the prototype delivered?

a. Will the Air Force ask for tech data as deliverable?

i. Yes, deliverables will include technical data and prototypes.

ii. The Air Force can award a manufacturing follow on FAR contract, if there is a requirement.

iii. The Air Force reserves the right to award a sole source production follow on FAR contract to the vendor with a successful prototype. Government will buy the prototype and data package with rights.

b. Will the Level 3 drawings and prototype belong to the Government?

i. In general, yes, unless otherwise specified in the request for task proposals, which will detail data rights parameters.

31. Who has airworthiness authority over the reverse engineered part?

Answer: Individual weapon system program offices retain airworthiness authority for all parts on their systems. Technical approval authority for individual efforts will vary based on the nature of the change or approach and the nature of delegated engineering authority. Ultimately, requirements for cognizant engineering authority approval will be detailed in the individual requests for white papers and/or proposals.

32. Will there be a way to knowledge/technology share between members of the consortium? In order to get the best product for prototype?

a. Yes, that is precisely what we expect the consortium manager to facilitate.

b. Per an attendee suggestion, and if requirements generate, the Air Force may consider facilitating agreements with Original Equipment Manufacturers for the use of older intellectual property.

33. Will Government be able to provide electronics to contractors to create a form, fit, function replacement?

Answer: The Air Force prefers providing parts for use in tasks. However, there will be times this will be a challenge as key parts may be flying. We will consider the use of condemned parts. We are also utilizing electronic part scanning technologies and considering a bond room should we not be able to provide an actual part. The Air Force intends to share all part data we are able to release.

34. Could we use Beyond Economical Repair (BER) parts to give to vendors?

Answer: Yes; this is an option (refer to question 34).

35. If the consortium manager has teammates can the teammates bid?

Answer: Consortium manager cannot be awarded as a prime or sub. If there is a direct link to the company of the consortium manager, such as subsidiaries, then they can’t compete for the project awards.

36. As a consortium manager, can you say what parts you want to accept or not?

Answer: The Government doesn’t want to set the manager up for failure, but the expectation is that they would accept all the requirements. The Air Force will collaborate with the Consortium Manager prior to award.

37. Is this a Form Fit Function equivalent effort?

Answer: For reverse engineering activities, in general, yes. It is foreseen the type of funding to be utilized in this effort will support Form, Fit, Function equivalents.

Determinations may be made on a task level basis.

38. What is going to prevent large Primes as a Consortium Manager from using established relationships and blocking out Small Business?

Answer: The Air Force will oversee this activity using our Core Values as guidance.

39. Will the consortium manager be a Small Business?

Answer: That decision has not been made yet.

40. How will you get the internal Air Force processes done more quickly?

Answer: The 448th applies a constraints based management approach to key Wing processes, including projects to go through this effort.

41. Will the rule of 2 bid apply?

Answer: No, since it is not a FAR contract

42. Does the fee to be a member put a burden on Small Business’s?

Answer: Fees are determined by the Consortium Manager. With other OTA

Consortiums, we have found there is usually a onetime nominal fee to sign up, and there is not a fee to compete on each proposal.

43. Is an RE/RD (slide on task/types) be a single part or family of parts?

Answer: We expect most RE/RD efforts will be for a single part. 20 parts on RE/RD annually is it a good estimate? Where will these parts come from? They are parts that fell through the cracks (SASPO). This is part of the No Bid list.

44. Will the award winner have an opportunity to talk with the engineer prior to or after award?

Answer: After award.

45. Why do we go to vendors instead of OEM?

Answer: We expect many of the parts to flow through this consortium will have been made by an OEM who is no longer in business.

46. Is the Government going to shield Small Business’s from Reverse Engineering OEM parts or can we classify these efforts to shield them from OEM litigation?

Answer: The Government will not offer a blanket shield of immunity to any contractor from potential litigation. Reverse engineering responsibilities and any potential liabilities will be addressed prior to award in the RFP process. The RFP process will be structured to protect the rights and interests of all stakeholders.

47. Will the RFWP be ~ 7 days? Are you looking at 12 days per event on the solicitation process?

Answer: 14-21 days. More complex requirements will be around 60 days to award

48. How much demand do we have for when we get manager on contract?

Answer: Still in formation stage; however, the estimate provided in the industry day slides reflect the best information available at this time.

49. How are we doing this effort now?

Answer: Through a system engineering program office. The timeframes are really long though, and this is an attempt to use a different vehicle that allows us to go faster.

50. Are bundling parts together an option?

Answer: This could be an option if it makes sense to do so

51. Is there an open-mindedness to subtractive manufacturing and approval by the engineers (part qualification)?

Answer: Engineers are open to it; the nature of feedback to be considered will be illustrated in individual task white paper requests.

52. If you have an R/E requirement and the cognizant Engineer needs to approve, does the contractor work directly with the engineer?

Answer: Everyone would be brought together by the consortium manager after award.

Roles will be established at that point, and the cognizant engineer will be a part of the team.

53. Is there a way to get a set of notional component types beforehand before the part drops? So that the contractors could get an idea for what parts to gear up for;

consortium members see the part and propose to the specific part.

Answer: If the Air Force is able to do so, we will share this information. Initially, providing a clear forecast may prove to be difficult. The Air Force estimates a year of performance under this consortium may provide sufficient info to facilitate such a process.

54. How can consortium members see the part and propose to the specific part?

Answer: The Consortium Manager will facilitate the proposal process. The Air Force prefers providing parts for use in tasks. However, there will be times this will be a challenge as key parts may be flying. We will consider the use of condemned parts. We are also utilizing electronic part scanning technologies and considering a bond room should we not be able to provide an actual part. The Air Force intends to share all part data we are able to release.

55. Will the follow on will be a Fixed price contract?

Answer: This will be based upon the requirement.

56. What happens if a huge error in estimating cost?

Answer: Government may reopen and discuss to see where the error occurred and possibly adjust the contract. This will be examined on a case-by-case basis.

57. Will we be able to get data to the vendors quickly?

Answer: Any information available would identified before requesting proposal input from the Consortium Manager. The Air Force will ask for all tech data available for the part from the program office to be able to clearly tell the vendor what the part is and what the problem is. Part of the OTA agreement will include the vendor having access to the TOs.

58. Any classified requirements to deal with?

Answer: At this time, classified requirements are not intended to be on this vehicle.

59. Do we have health measurements on each platform to help forecast? Can we share with industry? Is the 448th willing to share system health with industry to allow them to forecast and make business decisions?

Answer: The Air Force does have health measurements for each platform. However, there is no known correlation between overall platform health and the number/type of tasks coming to this consortium. Should the Air Force find sharing of such information would benefit the consortium (i.e., trend information helping to define the task/problem), then that information would be considered.

60. Will manager have responsibility to build and retain members?

Answer: Yes, we expect manager to build and maintain the team. The consortium manager will be incentivized to maintain team as the consortium manager gets paid when a contract is awarded and delivered.

61. Do we need reverse engineering support for non-US entities?

Answer: Possibly. No non-US-specific support envisioned. The ability of non-US firms to participate will be tied to the releaseability of technical data for the effort.

62. What are the core values of USAF?

Answer: Integrity first, service before self and excellence in all we do. OTA rules are broad where as FAR guidance is much more restrictive. So we will use our Core Values as guidance in any area not written in strict process rules.

63. Level of activity based on 448th locations/wings?

Answer: The level of activity included in the estimate is representative of potential

Wing-wide requirements.

64. What are the steps in value chain from customer perspective?

Answer: Industry day slide depicting the process is provided here:

65. What will we need from the supplier?

Answer: Ideas and solutions. We need suppliers to bring forth ideas forward. The Air

Force intent in establishing this vehicle is to solve problems with ideas brought forth.

66. Will the team be able to send ideas in without a problem set?

Answer: The Air Force will accept unsolicited whitepapers. The Air Force’s ability to act on any such white paper would be limited by active requirements, available funding, and terms of the OTA Consortium Manager agreement.

67. When it comes to interfacing to the original supplier, is it because the original supplier did not respond?

Answer: In some cases, yes. In some situations, the Air Force will expect the OTA member to establish an agreement with the OEM to partner and/or utilize proprietary data. Details will be included in individual solicitations.

68. For a RE requirement, who will vendor work with?

Answer: The vendor will work with the Consortium manager up until the time of award.

After that the vendor, will work with the Government requirement team who will be identified in the task.

69. Do our efforts align with SPO roadmaps?

Answer: Short answer: yes. The Air Force expects this vehicle to be complementary to other FAR and non-FAR based arrangements.

70. How are we looking at higher end technology, more complicated pieces (3D printed parts)?

Answer: The Air Force will consider alternate methods to manufacture and repair parts in individual tasks. Based on the qualification methods available to the Air Force team, boundaries for what will be considered will be defined on individual requests for white papers.

71. Does color of money apply?

Answer: Yes, any task will have to be the appropriate color of money. This determination will be made before tasks are solicited.

72. CICA doesn’t apply, so what determines comp?

Answer: The presence or expected presence of multiple proposals.

73. Can members participate in manufacturing of prototypes?

Answer: Yes. Tasks under this OTA Consortium will be for prototypes only with potential for follow-on FAR on non-FAR production contracts, as long as certain conditions are met.

74. Part R/E, could that be a LRU? If you don’t own the data on that, how would we do it?

Answer: The Government would provide you all the data we have and potentially the part and request a white paper approach

75. Will a Source Approval Request (SAR) package be required?

Answer: If needed, SARS process will be required as a deliverable. If SAR approval is needed it will be specified in solicitation.

76. What is the ratio for competed vs. non-competed?

Answer: No ratios exist. The default plan is to compete all tasks on this OTA

Consortium unless extenuating circumstances (determined by the Air Force Agreements

Officer) are present.

77. What is the percentage of sole source work now?

Answer: For new manufacture of parts (FAR based contracts; separate from this effort), just over half of 448th requirements are available from single sources.

78. Has there been situations with SOWs that have no bid?

Answer: Yes, in day to day production and repair efforts, this occurs. Should this occur in the OTA consortium, the Air Force will go out to industry to identify problems with the SOW and to see why where were no bids (e.g., economic or technical constraints).

79. Source approval includes a SAR package as a deliverable in the PWS?

Answer: Yes we plan to do just that so that it satisfies both at submission.

80. Is there a specific engineer competency assigned to consortium to approve projects?

Answer: An Air Force team comprised of a program manager, contracting officer, loggie, engineer, and other required members will evaluate the whitepapers and proposals. There will not be a specific engineer assigned to consortium, but rather the cognizant engineer based on the requirement. The engineer will be involved at all steps.

81. How do you overcome a risk adverse community? What if the Engineering at Tinker or

Robins like it but Hill does not?

Answer: Grow a culture enabled by faster decisions at the speed of need. The intent of this vehicle is to provide Air Force supply chain members with faster access to critical and/or emerging technologies necessary to solve supply chain problems and to connect the same members to non-traditional vendors in the aerospace and defense innovation ecosystem.

The Air Force program manager will secure. There will be an engineer on the team. We will try to get the buy in upfront from the engineering team providing the requirement.

82. How will we motivate the engineer team to resolve problem?

Answer: We will collect gate performance information (see answer to number 65 above) to identify and resolve constraints in the project process. This is a proven AFSC method that motivates team members (regardless of function) to resolve constraints. In fact, we often find the data tells us different story than our mind.

83. Will we have manufacturing in the prototype request?

Answer: The manufacturing process of the prototype will be evaluated; however, any manufacture of production assets will be accomplished via a separate, FAR or OTA production contract.

84. How are we working w/industry on high-end services rather than parts/stuff?

Answer: Three of the four elements of the OTA Consortium scope are for activities other than parts solutions and will consider the 448th’s prototyping of emerging technologies.

From the Industry Day “Requirement & Scope” slide:

– Part Reverse Engineering / Repair Development

– New Sustainment Technology

Artificial Intel; Alternate manufacturing; Machine Learning; Robotic Process

Automation, etc.

– Business Process Re-engineering

– Rapid Problem Solving (e.g., Hackathons)

85. Will the Government have proprietary data when OTA is complete?

Answer: Individual task solicitations will define the type of data required by the Air Force after prototype completion

86. Who are the customers outside of AFSC?

Answer: AFSC Partners (e.g., AFLCMC, AFNWC, DLA, etc.). Any task supporting an AFSC

Partner must support a 448th equity, and this will be determined by the 448th OTA program manager.

87. Will the contracting approach be centralize or decentralized?

Answer: While requirements will arise from across the Wing’s three locations, the initial plan is to have all contracting activity centralized at Tinker AFB.

88. How do we see hackathons playing out?

Answer: We expect a challenging problem will be posited to the consortium whereby alternative solution approaches will be considered. The end product will likely be only a prototype or prototype procedures, and the benefit will be an innovative way of thinking towards problem solving. It is expected a hackathon winner will receive a cash prize

(competition), similar to the SOCOM SOFWERX and Air Force AFWERX models.

89. Observation: RE/RD and the hackathon concept are mostly, if not entirely, outputs of R&D and “think-tank” environments. While they may roll into production and yield hardware assets, deploying DER leadership and aggressive capital investments with few hardware solutions seems very likely. My sense is DARPA is good at managing services but it may not be core to your strengths yet. QUESTION: How will you organize and manage the NRE front-end of the value chain when there is no hardware to buy?

Answer: Any OTA task will be a product of a program decision to prototype a capability. The program management and planning activities for will be captured as part of OTA task vetting accomplished internal to the Air Force.

90. OBSERVATION: Business Process Engineering is a sort of discipline that you have already begun to bring into your ranks internally without much external input. QUESTION: How do you expect the supply base, with minimal visibility, authority or responsibility of your issues, to participate as experts, surface process inefficiencies, define KPIs (or even see the metrics collected), and finally have the clout to change your processes?

Answer: Business process engineering tasks would be very specific to the type of challenge faced, and members would be provided with a description of the challenge, the operating environment, and representative user perspectives.

91. From supporting documents supplied before the meeting: “individual projects may be restricted to US sources only.” Many of us may have access to low-cost region suppliers

(from India, etc.). Under which conditions can non-US entities be used in a sub-contracting mode?

Answer: In general, if a law requires use domestic sources, we will have to follow it. If the

Federal Acquisition Regulation requires it, we should have some flexibility. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to provide a table of ‘if, then’ scenarios at this point. The nature of individual requirements will determine any restrictions to national suppliers/providers. Details on such restrictions will be delineated in individual tasks and should we gain sufficient detail to build a more comprehensive ‘if, then’ table, we will add such an artifact to the process and share with the ecosystem.

92. In order to maintain a viable pool of non-traditional defense contractors, what are you plans to ensure that these non-traditional defense contractors can maintain their status following the execution of any potential Other Transactional Prototype Agreement that exceeds $500,000? Do you plan to provide a waiver of the certified cost or pricing data requirements in accordance with Title 10, Chapter 127, Section 2306a, subsection (b) or do you plan to ensure each transaction is less than the $500,000 threshold?

Answer: There is no such plan to maintain vendor status nor waive cost and pricing data requirements on separate FAR contracts. The Truth In Negotiations Act (TINA) and Cost

Accounting Standards (CAS) do not apply to OTA agreements. Further, 10 USC 2302 (9) states, “The term "nontraditional defense contractor", with respect to a procurement or with respect to a transaction authorized under section 2371(a) or 2371b of this title, means an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by the Department of Defense for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section.” So, a vendor who is only performing on the OTA would not exceed the definition of non-traditional unless they secure separate federal contracts meeting this definition.

93. Is the manager from industry or DoD?

Answer: The Consortium Manager is from Industry and will be chosen competitively.

94. Is there a way for input from industry to Government?

Answer: Unsolicited proposals are allowed, per the FAR. Also, unsolicited white papers may be provided to the SASPO. Additionally, calling the 448th Wing is an option – POC Jeff

Slayton, 405-736-2805.

95. Would there be more of a prescriptive response for whitepapers? So that vendors could provide a better whitepaper?

Answer: The requirements to be addressed in white paper submittals will be listed in requests for white papers. Additionally, we expect the OTA Consortium Manager will provide inputs to its members along these lines as well.

96. What will the whitepaper format be?

Answer: Similar to other whitepaper templates. A template will be provided.

97. Do we require pricing in the whitepaper?

Answer: A rough order of magnitude may be required in a white paper submittal (will be noted in individual requests for white papers. Pricing will be required in the RFP

98. Do you need reverse engineering support for foreign support?

Answer: Foreign Military Service (FMS) members frequently benefit from common use components. However, country-specific requirements posted through this OTA would be an exception.

99. Are you using the understanding of how long the fleet will be around, as available to the contracting community, for planning purposes?

Answer: Yes, AF is looking at life and type buys, but need to consider the life cycle retirement date of record are extended.

100. Even though OTA will take care of Contracting Constraints, what about BAA and ITAR requirements, American First Limitations?

Answer: Yes they exist, we will address constraints as we see them.