NFP_W31P4Q-17-X-0001_-_OTA_Q&A_4May2018.pdf

Questions and Answers for

Notice for Proposals: W31P4Q-17-X-0001 for

The Department of Defense United States Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering

Center (AMRDEC) 10 U.S.C. § 2371b Other Transaction Solicitation

1. Question received 8 Apr 18: The first item in the bullet list in PART 2 -

ELIGIBILITY says that there is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project. As far as nonprofits, does it mean any nonprofit research institution or a nontraditional research institution?

Answer: It means a nonprofit research institution.

2. Question received 13 Apr 18: Notice For Proposals (NFP) 1.3 refers to “Prototype Project Awards” which are to be performed by a consortium member (PAH). The second requirement is “Task Requests” where the CAO is the Prime and executes the project (Task). Is the CAO always the prime in both situations, if not what is the CAO responsibilities in each? In the “task request” case, can the CAO participate if necessary for the task request, and bill directly for its effort?

Answer: The Government will issue Request for Project Proposal (RPP) to the CAO requesting proposals for a Prototype Project to be performed by Consortium Member Entity(ies) or a team headed by a Consortium Member Entity to meet Government requirements related to the Objective Areas. The CAO is not the Prime and cannot participate in the Prototype Project. The Project Agreement Holder (PAH) is solely responsible for performance of the project.

A Task Request is a solicitation provided by the Government to the Consortium Member Entities through its CAO that includes a detailed description of activities, schedules, and funding, as appropriate, for the Consortium’s consideration and acceptance of its commitment to perform the task. For Task Requests, the CAO will provide the Consortium Member Entities with a Task Request and the Consortium Member Entities will provide a response to the CAO as to whether or not it will support the task, given the level of effort required and funding available to the Consortium. The CAO is the Prime in this case, but cannot participate in the technical execution of the Task Request.

In both RPPs and Task Requests, the CAO is the agent acting on behalf of the Consortium to execute and administer the efforts under the OTA for this program.

The CAO will enter into project Agreements with Consortium Member Entity(ies) whose Prototype Project(s) was selected for funding. The CAO will provide administrative support on the Government-funded Prototype Projects and the project Agreements. The CAO may participate with the Government in the planning, programming and budgeting of the Prototype Projects. The CAO will review EWP and proposal submissions for conformance with OTA Authority and with Government requirements.

3. Question received 13 Apr 18: Notice For Proposal (NFP) 5.3.1 Programmatic Experience: Our understanding is that the CAO must show experience in managing a previous “Organization/Consortium” but can the other factors i.e. multiple Guided Missiles, Manufacturing and Enabling/Disruptive and Aviation technical efforts be met by the Consortium Members? Is this a correct interpretation?

Answer: The Offeror shall provide a narrative detailing its programmatic experience managing a previous organization/consortium and the ability to lead multiple Guided Missile, Manufacturing and Enabling/Disruptive, and Aviation technical efforts. The Offeror is to propose to the Government their ability to lead multiple Guided Missile, Manufacturing and Enabling/Disruptive, and Aviation technical efforts. The Government cannot provide direction on how to propose the technical solution.

4. Question received 13 Apr 18: General: Is it the desire of the government to have a specific, dedicated consortium for AMRDEC purposes? Is proposing an extant consortium sufficient?

Answer: ACC-RSA, on behalf of the US Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC), intends to enter into an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) for the development and maturation of guided missile technologies, manufacturing and enabling/disruptive technologies, and aviation technologies. ACC-RSA intends on entering into an OTA with one (1) Consortium Administrative Organization (CAO), on behalf of the Consortium, whose body of members possesses a collective expertise in prototype guided missile technologies, manufacturing and enabling/disruptive technologies, and aviation technologies. The Consortium would potentially include industry, academia, non-profit, and for-profit entities for the purpose of enhancing our warfighters’ lethality, survivability, and combat effectiveness through industrial and academic research, development, and technology demonstrations. The offeror shall provide to the Government the current or proposed consortium membership base of industry and academia partners. The Government cannot provide direction on how to propose the technical solution.

5. Question received 13 Apr 18: NFP 5.4 Draft OTA Article IV: Is it the governments intent to issue a cost plus Type contract to the CAO or will it be fixed price? If cost plus, what is included in the cost baseline? If cost plus, will fee be determined by weighted guidelines? Our experience with OTA(s) we have managed is that a fixed fee is applied against each project cost and that fee is examined on a yearly or bi-yearly basis for fairness. Is this a reasonable interpretation, e.g. IRAD participation, specified be met by member of the Consortium who have relevant capabilities. Will the government favorably consider a fixed fee paradigm for the CAO?

Answer: A CPFF contractual structure is used to account for the CAO's administrative costs, managerial costs, and fixed fee. The direct costs, indirect costs, and associated fixed fee is charged as a percentage of the cost of each prototype project in an amount to be agreed upon each Government Fiscal Year (GFY). The administration percentage is adjusted annually to reflect projected expenses and project costs for the forthcoming year as well as adjustments for prior actual costs, actual allocation base, and billings resulting in a rate adjustment to account for any over or under recovery of GFY actual costs, allocation base (initiatives), and billings experienced in the prior GFY.

Sections 5.4 Fee Structure Volume of the Notice for Proposals has been updated to further clarify the Government’s intent.

6. Question received 13 Apr 18: Draft OTA - This appears to be requirement that the CAO have a TS facility clearance, is this an absolute requirement?

In other OTA(s) the security requirements (i.e.D254) are flowed down from the government to the PAH not the CAO. In this paradigm the CAO has no need for a TS facility clearance. Is this an acceptable procedure?

Secondly, The OTA appears to require all PAH(s) to possess TS/SCI clearance staff whether or not the PAH is performing TS/SCI – level work.

Is this the government’s intent?

Answer: The CAO must propose a solution to handle and transmit TS/SCI level documentation and deliverables.

7. Question received 13 Apr 18: General - What is the security level required for the website, e.g. secret, top secret etc.

Answer: Unclassified

8. Question received 13 Apr 18: Attachment 5, CAO annual report metrics references “insight into awareness of energy, environment and demilitarization issues”. This appears nowhere else in the documents and does not appear relevant to the effort. What is the purpose of this requirement?

Answer: Attachment 5 has been corrected and updated.

9. Question received 13 Apr 18: Under Para. 5.3.2 Structure of the Consortium, it indicates that the web application (web site) must be compliant with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Given that Section 508 compliance applies to Federal Agency websites, will you be requiring the consortium to have 508 compliant websites given that any consortium’s web site would be a commercial website and is not a Federal website (i.e., not a deliverable application under the OTA to the Government for government use)?

Answer: Yes. The website must be Section 508 compliant.

10. Question received 13 Apr 18: Within the government’s estimate of $175 million total value of first years projects:

a. What is the estimated number of projects?

b. What is the estimated number of projects requiring TS/SCI clearance?

Answer: There is an estimated number of 10 projects for the first year. Some of those projects may require TS/SCI clearance.

11. Question received 18 Apr 18: As I understand the request, you are looking for proposals from entities that are interested in managing the OTA contract. It is not a request for project proposals. Is this correct? I assume that you will award someone the responsibility to manage the OTA and then there will be project RFPs at a future date. Can you confirm my assumption?

Answer: The Government intends to enter into an OTA with one (1) Consortium Administrative Organization (CAO), on behalf of the Consortium, whose body of member possesses a collective expertise in prototype guided missile technologies, manufacturing and enabling/disruptive technologies, and aviation technologies. The Government is not looking to award Prototype Projects at this time, however Prototype Projects are expected to be awarded under the OTA.

12. Question received 02 May 18: Under Section 1.3, “Task Requests”, is there any provision or mechanism for the CAO to work a Task Request as the prime and provide services as a consortium member?

a. If so, is the CAO required to submit a proposal for the work to be performed under the Task Request?

Answer: See answer for Question #2 above.

13. Question received 02 May 18: Is this solicitation earmarked for a specific type of business entity, (small business, non-profit, etc.)?

Answer: No. The solicitation is not set aside for any particular type of business entity.

14. Question received 02 May 18: Can the CAO be included in the Team

Technical Experience?

Answer: See the answer to Question #2 above. The CAO cannot participate in the technical execution of the Task Request or Prototype Project.

15. Question received 02 May 18: Page 17, paragraph 3 of Attachment 1 to NFP

– Draft AMRDEC OTA, states:

“The CAO shall be responsible for the overall day-to-day management of Government-issued Prototype Projects and Project Agreements under this OTA, including general oversight of technical, programmatic, reporting, financial, administrative and contractual matters.”

However, the specific reference to technical oversight within that language seems at odds with guidance on page 11, paragraph 2, line 3 of Attachment 1 to NFP – Draft AMRDEC OTA, which appears to characterize the Government Agreements Officer Representative (AOR) as having this responsibility:

“The Government’s designated AOR for the specific project will supervise the technical work and monitor performance of agreed milestones performed by the Project Agreement Holder (PAH) in execution of the prototype projects”

Additional language on page 13, paragraph 1, line 4 of Attachment 1 to NFP

– Draft AMRDEC OTA supports the Government’s role:

“The Government will monitor the technical worked performed and technical compliance under each funded Project Agreement.”

Please clarify the apparent discrepancy.

Answer: Page 11, paragraph 2, line 3 of Attachment 1 to NFP – Draft AMRDEC OTA, should state that the Government’s designated AOR for the specific project will monitor the technical work and monitor performance of agreed milestones performed by the Project Agreement Holder (PAH) in execution of the prototype projects. The Draft AMRDEC OTA will be amended to reflect this change. The Government will not supervise the performance of the technical work.