ASAP_Amended_Draft_RFP_Q&As.pdf

STATEMENT OF WORK

Question: Section 2 Applicable Documents – Will the Government provide the Contract Document Summary List (DSL)?

Response: Yes, the Government will provide a DSL with the final RFP

Question: Section 3.1.1 Qualification Tests & 3.1.2 Flight Services – Are their specific training and/or certifications that the contractor’s personnel will require to enable them to launch and recover an ASAP on a Government range?

Response: The only requirement in regards to the launch and recovery on a Government range is an Ammunition Certification (Class V) card to allow flight services personnel the ability to draw RATO motors and squibs from the ASP.

Question: Section 3.1.2 Flight Services – During Industry Day the Government indicated the availability of SR-121 RATOs. Will the Government further provide available quantities and life expectancy?

Additionally, will the Government provide any available specification(s) and ICDs?

Response: It is the Government’s intent to provide the SR-121 RATO. The interface information will be provided with the final RFP as part of the MQM-107 TDP. The Government will be responsible for making sure the required quantity of RATOs is available. The life expectancy of the RATOs should not be an issue.

Question: Section 3.1.4 & 3.19 & 3.22 Flight Qualification & Production Acceptance Test Planning – Reference to DI-NDTI-80566; there does not appear to be an accompanying CDRL which sets forth the distribution, number of copies, and addresses. Does the Government intend to define a CDRL for this DI?

Response: This information is defined in CDRL A007.

Question: Section 3.1.6 & 3.21 3.24 Flight Qualification & Production Acceptance Test Report(s) – Reference to DI-NDTI-80809; there does not appear to be an accompanying CDRL which sets forth the distribution, number of copies, and addresses. Does the Government intend to define a CDRL for this DI?

Response: This information is defined in CDRL A013.

Question: Section 3.1.7 Payload Equipment, 3.17.3 Payload Equipment, & 3.28.2 Payload Equipment – The Flares/Chaff Dispensers are listed as a Payload. Please clarify if these Dispensers are to be carried internal to the target or carried externally in a wing mounted pod. Additionally, will the Government provide the Interface Control Documents (ICDs) for these Dispensers?

Response: the SOW was written in general terms to define tasks that the contractor may be asked to do during the course of the contract. Specific payloads that will be tested as part of acceptance tests are provided in the specification. In the case of flare/chaff dispensers, this capability may be integrated into the target at a later time and will be implemented as a task under a specific Engineering Services Memorandum. At that time, the specific dispenser will be identified and ICDs will be provided.

Question: Section 3.6.10 Health Hazard Assessment Report – Reference to DI-SAFT-80106; there does not appear to be an accompanying CDRL which sets forth the distribution, number of copies, and addresses. Does the Government intend to define a CDRL for this DI?

Response: This information is defined in CDRL A004.

Question: Section 3.7 Flight Termination System – The text references paragraph 8.3.23 of RCC-319.

Will the Government provide RCC-319?

Response: RCC-319 can be downloaded from the Range Commander’s Council web site http://www.wsmr.army.mil/RCCsite/Pages/Publications.aspx RCC-319 is a tailorable document and will be specific to the target.

Question: Section 3.12 Technical Data – Reference to DI-ERDS-80940; there does not appear to be an accompanying CDRL which sets forth the distribution, number of copies, and addresses. Does the Government intend to define a CDRL for this DI?

Response: This information is defined in CDRL A018.

Question: Section 3.14.2 Configuration Management Program – Reference to DI-CMAN-80858; CDRL A014 refers to DI-SESS-80858C. Which callout is correct?

Response: the correct callout should be DI-SESS-**** and not DI-CMAN-****-defined in configuration CDRLs (A009, A010, A011, A021, A022, & A023).

Question: Sections 3.14.10, 3.14.11, & 3.14.12 – Noted sections refer to DI-CMAN-… while corresponding CDRLS, (A009, A011, A023, & A021) refer to DI-SESS-… Which callouts are correct?

Response: the correct callout should be DI-SESS-**** and not DI-CMAN-****-defined in configuration CDRLs (A009, A010, A011, A021, A022, & A023)

Question: Section 3.26 RCC-319 Qualification (Option) & 3.27 Technical Support (Option) – It is noted the Contractor participation in range safety and certification but find the solicitation silent regarding airworthiness certification for any potential newly developed target. Does the Government anticipate airworthiness certification being a requirement?

Response: yes, the government does anticipate that airworthiness certification will be a requirement.

This effort will be covered under a sub-ESM when the requirement arises.

Question: Section 3.43.9.5 Sub-ESM Funding – The requirement states; “The bottom line cost of each sub-ESM shall be an even multiple of the contractual hourly rate for the associated Engineering Services contract line item number (CLIN).” Specifically, for which CLIN(s) should the contractual hourly rate(s) be proposed? Those CLIN's should refer to the appropriate ESM SOW paragraph to ensure clarity of requirements.

Response: the cited statement applies to any task generated by an Engineering Services Memorandum under CLINs 0027 – 0031. Those CLINs are associated mainly with SOW paragraphs 3.43 et.al. (not 3.34) Other SOW paragraphs will also be applicable that are general in nature like those pertaining to safety, health hazards, security, etc.

http://www.wsmr.army.mil/RCCsite/Pages/Publications.aspx

Question: Section 3.43.9.12 Performance and Cost Reports – Reference to DI-FNCL-80912; there does not appear to be an accompanying CDRL which sets forth the distribution, number of copies, and addresses. Does the Government intend to define a CDRL for this DI?

Response: This information is defined in CDRL A016.

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS

Question: Section 3.3 Special Test Equipment and Tools – Will the Government provide the existing Technical Data for the Army’s Model 59 Test Set?

Response: No. The contractor is responsible for providing the target ICD to the Government and the Government will be responsible for adding the capability to test the ASAP target on the Model 59 test set.

Question: Section 3.5.1 Control Frequency – Will the Government provide the Interface Control Documents (ICDs) for the Micro Systems radio P/N AY12950-3 and the other Micro Systems radios currently approved for use at Fort Bliss and White Sands Missile Range (WSMR)?

Response: the Government will supply the ICD for the AY12950-3 (subject to distribution limitations) which will be the transponder that will be used for the ASAP target.

Question: Section 3.5.3 Payload Control – Will the Government provide the ICDs for the noted GFE Payloads?

Response: the Government will provide interface information for the GFE payloads to be demonstrated as defined in the performance specification.

Question: Section 3.5.3 Payload Control –The list of “External” payloads includes a self-contained “Camera”. What are the installation requirements, (e.g. mechanical interfaces, field-of-view, and the preferred location), for this Camera? Is there an ICD or a Manufacturer’s Identification available?

Response: The requirement will be removed from the specification as a demonstration requirement.

The camera will remain referenced in the SOW. The Government will identify the camera to be used and provide available information as part of a sub-ESM if the need arises.

Question: Section 3.5.3 Payload Control – SOW Sections 3.1.7, 3.17.3, & 3.28.2 list the Flares/Chaff Dispensers as a Payload while this section does not. Please clarify and/or reconcile.

Response: the SOW was written in general terms to define tasks that the contractor may be asked to do during the course of the contract. Specific payloads that will be tested as part of acceptance tests are provided in the specification. In the case of flare/chaff dispensers, this capability may be integrated into the target at a later time and will be implemented as a task under a sub-ESM. At that time, the specific dispenser will be identified and ICDs will be provided.

Question: Section 3.7.2 Recovery – The requirement states; “The ASAP shall be recoverable, by parachute, over the speed and altitude ranges of the target (threshold (KPP)).” This implies that the parachute is to be deployable at the maximum stated speed and altitude. Please confirm that this is the Government’s intent. If not, please provide clarification.

Response: It is the intent of the Government that the parachute could be deployed at any altitude or speed if an emergency termination was required. Under normal operations, the target would be brought to a recoverable speed/altitude where the parachute can be deployed.

Question: Section 3.7.5 Airspeed – The requirement states; “…or 600 KIAS for 3.5 minutes in level flight at an altitude of 10,000 feet MSL (objective).” As written, this requirement corresponds to Mach 1.058.

Please confirm that this is the Government’s intent.

Response: the 600 KIAS is an objective capability, not a threshold requirement.

Question: Section 3.7.16.3 Transponder Payload – Will the Government provide the ICDs for the referenced Transponders and associated Antennas?

Response: the Government will supply the ICD for the AY12950-3 (subject to distribution limitations) which will be the transponder that will be used for the ASAP target.

Question: Section 4.5 Verification Matrix – 1) 3.7.1 Visual Acquisition on page 13 is omitted from the matrix, 2) the Paragraph references to Section 3 Requirements for 3.7.1 thru 3.7.17.8 are in error.

Response: The verification matrix will be corrected in the final RFP.

DRAFT RFP/SOLICITATION

Question: Section B – Most of the CLINs do not reflect a Performance Period. Will the Government provide a Performance Period for each CLIN? The information provided in the Draft Solicitation is insufficient to allow a Contractor to lay out a program schedule and develop a program plan. Shouldn't Section F summarize the contract period of performance by CLIN in elapsed time?

Additionally, for the same reasons stated above, Section H, para H.3 subparagraph 3 on page 48 mentions "--option exercise period--". What are the option exercise periods in elapsed time?

Response: the Government’s desire is to be able to exercise any option over the life of the contract as funding becomes available. The Base year includes the development CLIN to get to Critical Design Review and the remaining tasks are options. The Contractor should propose their best schedule to meet the requirement.

Question: Section B – What are the quantities for each of the following CLINs: 0003AA – 0016AA & 0022AA – 0026AA? Would the Government provide the existing quantities of Targets and Launchers presently in inventory?

Response: The minimum number of initial prototypes (Development and Delivery of Prototype + Test) is two. Purchase of additional prototypes maximum is three. Maximum number of targets to be purchased is 84. Multiple CLINS are set up to facilitate purchase of equipment in any contract year.

Question: Section B – The following CLINs are identified as Cost No Fee: 0011AA & 0013AA. Should these CLINs be identified as Firm Fixed Price?

Response: Yes.

Question: Section B – Please clarify the Performance Period for CLIN 0016AA.

Response: The performance period for CLIN 0016 will be the last year of the contract. Periods of Performance will be defined in the final RFP.

Question: Section B, CLINs 0027AA – 0031AA – These CLIN's are Engineering Support Services CLIN's.

The Work Scope is undefined. Should these CLIN's be subject to the ESM process described in Section

3.43.9.1 and subs? A contract Type of Firm Fixed Price does not appear feasible.

Response: CLINs 0027 -0031 are subject to the ESM process. When a sub-ESM is issued, the contractor will propose with fixed price labor rates. The SOW reference for these CLINs should have been 3.43, not

3.34. Paragraphs 3.26 and 3.27 will also be sub-ESM efforts. The ESM CLINs should be Fixed Price Labor Hours and will be estimated when a sub-ESM is approved.

Question: Section B, CLINs 0047 – 0051AA & CLINs 0052 – 0056AA – Both sets of CLINs cite SOW section 3.33, (e.g. Spares). In which set of CLINs should SOW section 3.33 be priced?

Response: Spares should be priced in CLINs 0047-0051.

Question: Section B, CLIN 0052 – 0056AA – SOW section 3.35 is cited, (e.g. Augmentation/Accessory), which are equipment items as opposed to material. Should these CLINs be Firm Fixed Price vs. Cost No Fee?

Response: SOW paragraph 3.35 should be part of the Spares/Augmentation Devices CLINs 0047-0051.

Question: Section B, CLIN 0052 – 0056AA – SOW section 3.4 is cited, (e.g. Repair and Refurbishment Testing), which is an operation/function. Is this SOW reference correct? If so, what “materials” are envisioned to be a part of this effort?

Response: The SOW reference for CLINs 0052-0056 has been corrected to paragraph 3.41. Normal repair and refurbishment is an operational function and is usually performed by the flight services personnel. Section 3.4 is included to cover any repair/refurbishment tasks that would be done at the vendor’s facility instead of by the flight services contractor. CLINs 0052-0056 could be used to buy material to effect repairs such as a composite repair kit or a damaged connector (as opposed to a new wing section or a complete wiring harness). The Government’s intent is for the contractor to use the current field test set (Model 59) to verify repairs or refurbishment of components installed in the target to ensure proper operation.

Question: Section B, CLIN 0057AA – 0061AA – These CLIN's are Repair Services CLIN's. The Work Scope is undefined. Should these CLIN's be subject to the ESM process described in Section 3.43.9.1 and subs?

A contract Type of Firm Fixed Price does not appear feasible.

Response: The intent is that this would work similar to an ESM process with a fixed price hourly rate for doing repairs. The scope is undefined to allow some flexibility because of the uncertainty of what is going to get damaged. The materials needed for repair tasks should be purchased under the Material CLINs 0052-0056.

Question: Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs – Where in Section B should SOW sections

3.30 Training (Option) and 3.32 Special Test Equipment (Option) be priced?

Response: a revised CLIN structure was posted that added CLINs 0082 – 0086 for training. Special Test Equipment should be priced under the Ground Support Equipment CLINs 0017-0021.

Question: Section C-2 & Section J – Will the Government make available Attachments 0003 & 0004 prior to the final RFP/Solicitation release?

Response: Attachment 0003, Base Engineering Services Memorandum (ESM) and Attachment 0004 DD254 will be provided in the final RFP.

Question: Section C-2 & Section J – It is noted that most of the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs) require Data Item submissions in either Microsoft Office 2000 – XP or Microsoft Office 2007. Is it the intent of the Government to upgrade to later versions of Microsoft Office or require the Contractor to adhere to the submission requirements as stated? Reason: Most all Aerospace Companies are now using Office 2013 or Office 2016. This requirement would require most Contractors to acquire obsolete software.

Response: More recent versions of Microsoft Office software is permissible.

Question: Section C-2 & Section J, CDRL A031, (DID-IPSC-81488) – Please specify the medium/version which the Source Code is to be provided.

Response: Source Code may be provided on CD/DVD or by electronic media in both Word format and development environment format.

Question: Section C-2 & Section J, (Attachment 0005 DD1423 CDRLS) – Does the Government intend to add, and/or delete, any CDRLS prior to the final RFP/Solicitation release?

Response: the Government does not anticipate changes to the CDRLs prior to the final RFP, however, reserves the right to do so should the need arise.

Question: Section D, Paragraph D-1 FAR 52.208-4701 specifies quite clearly the Governments general requirements of packaging and marking. However, we find no specific requirement for the Targets to be delivered. Is it the Governments intent to leave the selection of packaging and crating type up to the Contractor or will the Government specify a specific requirement for the Targets?

Response: Packaging requirements are specified on the Engineering Release (For Procurement) which states “Best Commercial Practices using MIL-STD-2073-1D(1) as a guide”. The selection of packaging and crating shall be defined by the Contractor and approved by the Government during the design process.

Question: Section L-12, 2. a. (1) & 2. a. (4) e. – Are the Title Page and the Cover Page one in the same though both are requiring different information?

Response: No. The Title page is the 1st page inside the binder, the Cover page goes outside of the Binder.

Question: Section L-12, 3. B. (3) – The Draft RFP/Solicitation states that the estimated phase-in costs shall be included separately in the offerors cost proposal. Where specifically in Volume II should these costs be located?

Response: There are no phase in tasks or costs. The reference will be removed from Section L.

Question: Section L-12, 3. B. (13) – The Draft RFP/Solicitation makes reference to the cost plus incentive fee effort. Specifically, to what CLINS does this apply?

Response: there are no CPIF CLINs in this solicitation. The reference will be removed from Section L.

Question: Section L-12, 3. C. (5) – Where can the Past Performance Questionnaire be found?

Response: the Past Performance Questionnaire will be included in the final RFP.

Question: Section L-12, 3. C. (8) – Where can Appendix F, Enclosure 4 be found?

Response: Appendix F, Enclosure 4 will be included in the final RFP.

Question: Section M, A. a & b. – A. a states; “Technical/Management is approximately equal in importance to Cost”, while B. states: “Sub-factor 1 is significantly more important than Sub-factor 2. In that these two statements directly contradict each other, which one is correct?

Response: these two statements are not conflicting. The statement in paragraph A.a refers to two factors; Factor 1 is the Technical/ Management Factor and Factor 2 is Cost. Under paragraph B, Factor 1 is further broken down into two sub-factors; sub-factor one is Technical and sub-factor two is Management.

Question: Section M, B. – Factor Two Cost/Price makes reference to CPFF efforts. Where specifically in the Section B CLINS can these efforts be found?

Response: there are no CPFF CLINs in this solicitation.

GENERAL/MISCELLANOUS

Question: Would the Government make available for usage the existing MQM-107 transport/storage containers as GFP? Additionally, would the Government provide the existing CAD definition or Drawings for these containers?

Response: Any MQM-107 transport/storage containers not in use will be available “as is”. Drawings for these cases are in the MQM-107 Technical Data Package.

Question: The Contractor is to provide on-site field operations/support to both Army facilities as well as OCONUS deployed locations. Are any of the existing government support infrastructure available to be used by the Contractor to support launch and recovery operations?

NOTE: Infrastructure could include, but not be limited to: 1) Truck(s) with Crane, 2) Compressors/Pumps,

3) GSE – Trailers, Carts, other.

Response: The Government will provide any infrastructure items that are currently being utilized to support the targets program which includes the items mentioned above, where available. For operational service tasks awarded under CLINS 0037-0041, the vendor may have to supply his own BOOM truck, generator, crane, compressor, etc. as part of the operation depending on range location.

This will be defined in individual tasks.

Question: Will the Government authorize shipment via Government Bill of Lading (GBL) or will the contractor be responsible for shipping via commercial means?

Response: The contractor will be responsible for shipping via commercial means until such time as a target is made a part of the Government’s fleet, at which time operational missions will be supported by Government Bill of Lading.

Draft RFP

Question: CLINS 0002 – 0006 address the Dev/Del & Quality Test Option. Are there specific OY’s or PoPs associated with each CLIN? Similarly, CLINS 0007-0011 address the Purchase Add’l Prototypes Option.

Are these related to each of the 5 Years in the PoP? Is it the Government’s intent to ask for a specific number in each of the CLINS?

Response: The CLINS cited were set up so that the option could be exercised during any year of the contract. The intent is to exercise only one of each option set (0002-0006 and 0007-0011) per vendor during the life of the contract. The Contractor should propose their best schedule to meet the requirement.

Question: CLIN 0012 Target Production Buy Option states the maximum purchase quantity for all years shall not exceed 84; however, no SOW Paragraph is referenced. Should SOW paragraph 3.16 Aerial Target apply?

Response: Yes, SOW paragraph 3.16 is the applicable paragraph.

Question: CLIN 0013 through CLIN 0016 also addresses target production buys. Is the Govt’s intent to ask for specific quantities per CLIN? Is it the Government’s intent to exercise CLIN0013 through CLIN 0016 as out year options?

Response: The Government’s intent for CLINS 0012 – 0016 is to be able to buy targets during any year of the contract and the quantity will be dependent on price and the availability of funding. The Government’s desire is to purchase 84 targets over the life of the contract but due to uncertainty of funding, purchase quantity may vary from year to year. The Government requests that the contractor propose economic order quantities

Question: CLIN 0017 Ground Support and Special Equipment Option references SOW paragraph 3.31.

SOW paragraph states that the contractor will provide all necessary ground support equipment (GSE) ruggedized for field operations in accordance with the performance spec for the entire system. GSE for the proposed target system shall consist of equipment required for prelaunch testing, engine Start, transportation, handling, launch, recovery, hardware, engine covers, adapters, special tools, covers, containers, test sets, maintenance tools, service manuals and any other equipment needed for personnel to prepare the proposed target system for operation.

Question: Is it the intent of the Government that the contractor is to provide BOOM Trucks (Launch and recovery), Generators, blockhouses, overhead cranes and Compressors as GSE?

Response: the intent is for the vendor to provide any target/ground support peculiar equipment for this CLIN; the Government Flight Services contract will provide Boom trucks, generators, blockhouses, overhead cranes and compressors as GFE for acceptance testing. However, if the vendor is awarded a task under CLINs 0037-0041, the vendor may have to supply his own BOOM truck, generator, crane, compressor, etc. as part of the operation depending on range location.

Question: Launchers are listed under CLIN 0022. Should they also be included in CLIN 0017? Is it the desire of the Govt. to acquire both fixed and mobile launchers? If so, what quantities of each are desired?

Response: Launchers will be procured separately from Ground Support Equipment. The Government’s intent is to purchase up to 6 mobile launchers.

Question: Manuals are listed under CLIN 0072. Should the cost of the Manuals also be included in CLIN 0017?

Response: The cost of the technical manuals should be included in CLIN 0072 only. Training materials/manuals should be priced as part of training.

Question: CLIN 0037 references SOW Paragraphs 3.26 to 3.28, 3.36 – 3.37, and 3.41 – 3.42

i. SOW 3.26 RCC-319 Qualification Option. What is the level of support the contractor should propose?

Response: The technical support should be proposed as a firm fixed price labor hour. The scope will be defined in a sub-ESM and is part of the Engineering/Technical Support Services CLIN.

ii. SOW 3.27 Technical Support. Is the Government requesting just the completion of the target questionnaire (Appendix A)? If not, how is the scope of work to be bounded?

Response: The technical support should be proposed as a firm fixed price labor hour. The scope will be defined in a sub-ESM and is part of the Engineering/Technical Support Services CLIN.

Completion of the questionnaire and any required documentation that the range will require to ensure operation of the target on the range has been moved to paragraph 3.4 and should be priced as part of the Development and Test effort under CLINs 0002 - 0006. The contractor shall provide a technical expert that can answer technical questions presented by the range to ensure target qualification.

iii. SOW 3.41 Repair Option. Is the Govt. requesting just a T&M rate?

Response: The Government’s intent is for the Contractor to bid a fixed-price labor hour and materials will be reimbursed under the Material CLINs 0052-0056.

iv. SOW 3.42 Technical Services. What is to be included in CLIN 0037?

Response: CLIN 0037 should include the tasks defined in SOW paragraphs 3.28 et.al. Paragraph 3.42 will be deleted from the SOW.

Question: There is no CLIN to address SOW Para 3.30 Training

Response: a revised CLIN structure was posted that added CLINs 0082 – 0086 for training. The previous CLINs 0082 CDRLs and 0083 CMR were moved to CLINs 0087 and 0088 respectively.

Question: Should training only be addressed in CLIN 0037 under the Operational Capabilities?

Response: Training should be addressed in CLINs 0082-0086.

Question: H.4 ECONOMIC PRICE BREAK states: The contractor shall define economic order breakpoints and permit incremental coverage to include usage of maximum range quantity as requirements occur.

Should the contractor specify specific price break quantities for each of the CLIN’s?

Response: Price breaks should be included as applicable for all of the hardware CLINS.

Question: Section M A. Basis for Award. No minimum quantity is guaranteed. At what quantities will pricing be evaluated for all suppliers. (This applies to both Targets and Launchers.)

Response: For evaluation purposes, a quantity of 42 will be used for targets and 9 will be used for launchers.

Question: CLINs 0068-0071 Level 3 Technical Data Package – Are we to assume these are associated with each of the 5 year PoP? Will a Level 3 Technical Data Package be evaluated? If so what are the evaluation criteria?

Response: The TDP will only be exercised once per target, if at all. The only evaluation criteria will be cost.

General Questions

Question: Are answers to the questions not incorporated into the SOW or Performance Specs intended to be considered as a part of the RFP package? (Example: Question A3: Payloads Required to be Demonstrated.)

Response: Answers to the questions will be incorporated into the final RFP where applicable. In your example, Payloads, the specific payloads to be demonstrated are listed in the Performance Specification, paragraph 3.5.3. The SOW generalizes the types of payloads that may have to be worked with over the course of the contract. Any payloads not called out specifically in the Performance Specification, will be integrated through the use of sub-ESMs when the need arises.

Question: Technical Data Package – Question C14 (Previously asked and answered): Does the Government really want a level 3 Technical Data Package or will this be an option? Response: This CLIN will be an option to the contract. Does this mean the contractor is not required to price or provide a level 3 Technical Data Package – or only that the Govt. intends to exercise this as an option?

Response: the Government would like for the contractor to price the TDP as an option.

Question: Synopsis - Evaluation of multiple concepts proposed by one vendor will be dependent on how the proposals are written. If the concepts are independent of each other, they will be evaluated separately. If one concept is dependent on the other, then it will be considered as one proposal.

a. If contractor proposes independent concepts, should these be delivered as two separate proposals or should both concepts be addressed when proposing to each SOW requirement?

Response: The concepts should be presented as two separate proposals.

b. At the industry day the Govt. discussed the potential for multiple awards. This yields uncertainty and precludes the contractor from providing optimal pricing. Will the Govt. reconsider this acquisition philosophy?

Response: The Government doesn’t believe multiple awards yields uncertainty and plans to have the flexibility to award CLIN 0001 to multiple vendors.

D. For clarity, can the Government specify the applicable PoP (i.e. specific base or option year) for each of the CLINs?

Response: The Contractor should propose their best schedule to meet the requirement.

SOW Specific Questions

Question: All SOW Paragraphs have an associated CLIN to which they are tied to except:

a. 3.30 Training (past experience is that Tech Manuals are to be delivered as part of the training).

Can the government clarify which CLIN to price this under?

Response: a revised CLIN structure was posted that added CLINs 0082 – 0086 for training. The previous CLINs 0082 CDRLs and 0083 CMR were moved to CLINs 0087 and 0088 respectively.

Question: 3.32 Special test equipment not addressed by any CLIN ( this is for AGATCS and Model 59 support). Can the government clarify which CLIN applies?

Response: Special Test Equipment should be priced under the Ground Support Equipment CLINs 0017- 0021.

Question: 3.40.1 Physical Inventory. Can the government clarify which CLIN applies?

Response: The Physical Inventory should be priced in CLINs 0037-0041.

Question: 3.5.5 Please define formation. Is this automatic control, or two or more vehicles controlled manually by AGATCS?

Response: for formation flights, there will be a minimum of one controller per target. One or more of the targets may be in waypoint navigation.

Question: 3.5.6 If the ASAP is to be controlled by AGATCS, it seems that the data link update rate rates would be driven by AGATCS as opposed to the target vehicle. Can the government clarify if our assumption is correct?

Response: Your assumption is correct.